I need help revising my article review. 

Critique each article using the appropriate appraisal form: 

·
Qualitative Review

 Download Qualitative Review

·
Quantitative Review

 Download Quantitative Review

Use the information below to help you know which section of the article to use to answer the questions in the template:

· Introduction and its subsections have the purpose or WHY study done.

· Methods section and its subsections contains HOW the study was done.

· Results, Discussion and Conclusions section have WHAT was found.

Vocal Music Therapy for Chronic Pain:
A Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

Ming Yuan Low, MA, MT-BC,1 Clarissa Lacson, MA, MT-BC,1 Fengqing Zhang, PhD,2

Amy Kesslick, MA, MT-BC, LPC,3 and Joke Bradt, PhD, MT-BC1

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and preliminary effects of a vocal music
therapy (VMT) program on chronic pain management.

Design: A mixed methods intervention design was used in which qualitative data were embedded within a
randomized controlled trial.

Setting: An urban nurse-management health center on the East Coast of the United States.
Subjects: Participants (N = 43) were predominantly Black (79%) and female (76.7%) with an average pain

duration of 10 years.
Intervention: Participants were randomly allocated to a 12-week VMT program or a waitlist control.
Outcome measures: We tracked consent rate (percentage of participants enrolled out of total number

screened), attrition rate, and treatment adherence. We used PROMIS

(Patient Reported Outcomes Measure-
ment Information System) tools to measure pain interference, pain-related self-efficacy, pain intensity, de-
pression, anxiety, positive effect, and well-being, ability to participate in social activities, and satisfaction with
social roles at baseline and week 12. VMT participants also completed the Patient Global Impression of Change
Scale. We conducted semistructured interviews to better understand participants’ experience of the intervention.

Results: The consent rate was 56%. The attrition rate was 23%. Large treatment effects (partial eta squared) were
obtained for self-efficacy (0.20), depression (0.26), and ability to participate in social activities (0.24). Medium effects
were found for pain intensity (0.10), anxiety (0.06), positive effect, and well-being (0.06), and small effects for pain
interference (0.03) and satisfaction with social roles (0.03). On average, participants felt moderately better after
completion of the VMT program (M = 4.93, standard deviation = 1.98). Qualitative findings suggest that VMT resulted
in better self-management of pain, enhanced psychological well-being, and stronger social and spiritual connections.

Conclusions: Recruitment into the 12-week program was challenging, but quantitative and qualitative
findings suggest significant benefits of VMT for chronic pain management.

Keywords: music therapy, pain management, clinical trials

Introduction

Chronic pain is a significant public health problemamounting to an annual health care expense of ap-
proximately half a trillion dollars in the United States

alone.
1

In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention issued recommendations to move away from
opioids and instead use nonpharmacological thera-
pies for the treatment of chronic pain.

2
The use of music

for the

Take free quizzes online at acsjournals.com/ce

ONLINE CONTINUING EDUCATION ACTIVITY

After reading the article “Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Evidence-Based Use of Integrative Therapies During and After Breast Cancer Treatment,” the learner
should be able to:

ARTICLE TITLE: Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Evidence-Based Use of Integrative Therapies During
and After Breast Cancer Treatment

CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION ACCREDITATION AND DESIGNATION STATEMENT:
Blackwell Futura Media Services is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education (CME)
for physicians.
Blackwell Futura Media Services designates this enduring material for a maximum of 2.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should only claim credit
commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

CONTINUING NURSING EDUCATION ACCREDITATION AND DESIGNATION STATEMENT:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education (CNE) by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on
Accreditation.
Accredited status does not imply endorsement by the ACS or the American Nurses Credentialing Center of any commercial products displayed or discussed in
conjunction with an educational activity. The ACS gratefully acknowledges the sponsorship provided by Wiley for hosting these CNE activities.
EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES:

ACTIVITY DISCLOSURES:
No commercial support has been accepted related to the development or publication of this activity.
ACS CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE DISCLOSURES:
Editor: Ted Gansler, MD, MBA, MPH, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Associate Editor: Durado Brooks, MD, MPH, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Lead Nurse Planner: Cathy Meade, PhD, RN, FAAN, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Editorial Advisory Member: Richard C. Wender, MD, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
NURSING ADVISORY BOARD DISCLOSURES:
Maureen Berg, RN, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Susan Jackson, RN, MPH, has no financial relationships or interests to disclose.
Barbara L

World Journal of
Meta-Analysis

World J Meta-Anal 2019 November 28; 7(9): 406-435

ISSN 2308-3840 (online)

Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

W J M A
World Journal of
Meta-Analysis

Contents Irregular Volume 7 Number 9 November 28, 2019

REVIEW
406 Treatment of early stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma: Personalizing the best therapy choice

Kumble LD, Silver E, Oh A, Abrams JA, Sonett JR, Hur C

MINIREVIEWS
418 Mechanisms of action of aqueous extract from the Hunteria umbellata seed and metformin in diabetes

Ejelonu OC

423 Fecal microbiota transplantation: Historical review and current perspective
Leung PC, Cheng KF

META-ANALYSIS
428 Use of music during colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Heath RD, Parsa N, Matteson-Kome ML, Buescher V, Samiullah S, Nguyen DL, Tahan V, Ghouri YA, Puli SR, Bechtold ML

WJMA https://www.wjgnet.com November 28, 2019 Volume 7 Issue 9I

Contents
World Journal of Meta-Analysis

Volume 7 Number 9 November 28, 2019

ABOUT COVER Editorial Board Member of World Journal of Meta-Analysis, Xiangchun Shen,
PhD, Director, Postdoc, Professor, Teacher, School of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Functions and Applications of Medicinal
Plants, Guizhou Medical University, Guian New District 550025, Guizhou
Province, China

AIMS AND SCOPE The primary aim of World Journal of Meta-Analysis (WJMA, World J Meta-
Anal) is to provide scholars and readers from various fields of clinical
medicine with a platform to publish high-quality meta-analysis and
systematic review articles and communicate their research findings online.
WJMA mainly publishes articles reporting research results and findings
obtained through meta-analysis and systematic review in a wide range of
areas, including medicine, pharmacy, preventive medicine, stomatology,
nursing, medical imaging, and laboratory medicine.

INDEXING/ABSTRACTING The WJMA is now abstracted and indexed in China National Knowledge
Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), and

Superstar Journals Database

RESPONSIBLE EDITORS FOR
THIS ISSUE

Responsible Electronic Editor: Yan-Xia Xing

Proofing Production Department Director: Yun-Xiaojian Wu

NAME OF JOURNAL
World Journal of Meta-Analysis

ISSN
ISSN 2308-3840 (online)

LAUNCH DATE
May 26, 2013

FREQUENCY
Irregular

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/editorialboard.htm

EDITORIAL OFFICE
Jin-Lei Wang, Director

PUBLICATION DATE
November 28, 2019

COPYRIGHT
© 2019 Baish

APPENDIX E

Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Qualitative Study

Citation:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Synopsis

What experience, situation, or subculture does the researcher seek to understand?

Does the researcher want to produce a description of an experience, a social process, or an event, or is the goal to generate a theory?

How was data collected?

How did the researcher control his or her biases and preconceptions?

Are specific pieces of data (e.g., direct quotes) and more generalized statements (themes, theories) included in the report?

What are the main findings of the study?

Credibility

Is the study published in a source
that required peer review?  Yes   No   Not clear

Were the methods used appropriate
to the study purpose?  Yes   No   Not clear

Was the sampling of observations or
interviews appropriate and varied
enough to serve the purpose of the study?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Were data collection methods
effective in obtaining in-depth data?  Yes   No   Not clear

Did the data collection methods
avoid the possibility of oversight,
underrepresentation, or
overrepresentation from certain
types of sources?  Yes   No   Not clear

Were data collection and analysis
intermingled in a dynamic way?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Is the data presented in ways that
provide a vivid portrayal of what was
experienced or happened and its
context?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Does the data provided justify
generalized statements, themes,
or theory?  Yes   No   Not clear

Are the findings credible?  Yes All   Yes Some   No

Clinical Significance

*Are the findings rich and informative?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Is the perspective provided
potentially useful in providing
insight, support, or guidance
for assessing patient status
or progress?  Yes   Some  No  Not clear

Are the findings
clinically significant?  Yes All   Yes Some   No

* = Important criteria

Comments

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

APP E-2 Brown

Brown APP E-1

APPENDIX F

Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Quantitative Study

Citation:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Synopsis

What was the purpose of the study (research questions, purposes, and hypotheses)?

How was the sample obtained?

What inclusion or exclusion criteria were used?

Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data (demographic or clinical profile and dropout rate)?

What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence, timing, types of data, and measures)?

Was an intervention tested?  Yes   No

1. How was the sample size determined?

2. Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups?

What are the main findings?

Credibility

Is the study published in a source
that required peer review?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Did the data obtained and the
analysis conducted answer the
research question?  Yes   No   Not clear

Were the measuring instruments
reliable and valid?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Were important extraneous
variables and bias controlled?  Yes   No   Not clear

*If an intervention was tested,
answer the following five questions:  Yes   No   Not clear

1. Were participants randomly
assigned to groups and were
the two groups similar at the
start (before the intervention)?  Yes   No   Not clear

2. Were the interventions well
defined and consistently
delivered?  Yes   No   Not clear

3. Were the groups treated
equally other than the
difference in interventions?  Yes   No   Not clear

4. If no difference was found, was
the sample size large enough
to detect a difference if one existed?  Yes   No   Not clear

5. If a difference was found, are
you confident it was due to the
intervention?  Yes   No   Not clear

Are the findings consistent with
findings from other studies?  Yes   Some   No   Not clear

Are the findings credible?  Yes All   Yes Some   No

Clinical Significance

Note any difference in means, r2s, or measures of clinical effects (ABI, NNT, RR, OR)

*Is the target population clearly
described?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Is the frequency, association, or
treatment effect impressive enough
for you to be confident that the finding
would make a clinical difference if used
as the basis for care?  Yes   No   Not clear

Are the findings
clinically significant?  Yes All   Yes Some   No

* = Important criteria

Comments

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

______