SynthesisBMC psychology2026
Different arts-based interventions for depression and anxiety in college students: a network meta-analysis of rigorous randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of music-based interventions on test anxiety in students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArts-based interventions are increasingly employed to alleviate anxiety and depression among college students; however, their relative effectiveness across modalities remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of diverse arts-based approaches for improving mental health outcomes in this population.
methodsThis study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was preregistered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD420251141163). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted including randomized controlled trials published up to 10 September 2025, identified from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and APA PsycNet. Standardized mean differences (Hedges' g; negative values indicate symptom reduction) were synthesized under a random-effects model, and treatment rankings were estimated using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA). The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework, potential publication bias was evaluated using Egger's regression test, and the node-splitting method was applied to assess inconsistency.
resultsTwenty-eight trials involving 2,654 participants met the inclusion criteria. For anxiety, cognitive-behavioral therapy combined with music therapy showed the greatest improvement (SUCRA = 92.4%), followed by sandplay therapy (SUCRA = 82.4%). For depression, music therapy ranked highest (SUCRA = 82.4%), followed by cognitive-behavioral therapy combined with dance therapy (SUCRA = 79.8%). No evidence of publication bias was detected (Egger's p > 0.05), and the node-splitting analysis revealed no significant inconsistency across comparisons.
conclusionsAmong arts-based interventions for college students, integrating music into cognitive-behavioral therapy may offer the greatest benefit for anxiety, while standalone music therapy appears most effective for depression. These findings support the adoption of music-based programs in university settings and underscore the need for large-scale, rigorously designed trials to confirm these effects and optimize intervention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.