The story again highlights the difficulty in covering presentations from academic conferences, as such studies are not yet peer-reviewed and published in medical journals. Although the correlation between Mozart and detection rates is interesting, the article could have gone beyond the press release and looked at the study from a more critical angle, with a more thorough explanation of the so-called “Mozart Effect.” Although the news release was a bit of a challenge to decipher, the story based on it did not clearly explain its meaning for the reader.
There are no extensive costs associated with listening to Mozart’s music.
The absolute dfference in adenomas was not reported, only percentages. We’re told it was a small study. How small?
No foreseeable harms or side effects in listening to music during procedures.
The article does state that “data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.” However, the story should have discussed the limitations of such a small study and clarified the researchers’ methods and results. The story does not mention if other variables were accounted for, or if the correlation between Mozart and higher detection rates could have been due to other factors.
The study only had 2 physicians in it, and was not truly blinded.
The story provided some brief information on invasive colorectal cancer, based on the information in the news release.
There were no independent sources cited from outside the study. The only comment came from the lead researcher, Dr. Catherine Noelle O’Shea from the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Was music the only option for improving detection? Experience of the physician is probably closely related to detection rate, as well as number of procedures done per year. Let’s give Mozart his due, but let’s analyze the evidence on other alternative explanations as well.
Not applicable. There’s no question about the ability of anyone to listen to any of kind of music while doing colonoscopies.
Many studies, both positive and negative, have been conducted on the so-called “Mozart Effect.” And the story makes brief reference to past studies.
The story clearly was based on a press release by the American College of Gastroenterology. Similar language and the same quotations were used. There was not any evidence of original reporting.