← Research library
ResearchModerate evidence

Binaural beats and isochronic tones: a systematic literature review

Aparecido-Kanzler, Cidral-Filho and Prediger (2021) · Revista Mexicana de Neurociencia · Summary by Science Editor
Year
2021
Stimulus
Binaural beats
Design
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Sample
17 trials

Summary

Aparecido-Kanzler and colleagues set out to collect every controlled trial of audio brainwave entrainment they could find. Searching PubMed, MEDLINE, LILACS and ScienceDirect for terms such as “binaural beats”, “isochronic tones” and “auditory beat stimulation” produced 674 records. After removing duplicates and off-topic papers they were left with 33 randomized controlled trials, which they scored with the Jadad scale. Seventeen trials scored three or better and were read in full.

Fifteen of those seventeen used binaural beats; only two used isochronic tones, which says something about how thin the isochronic literature is. Most of the included trials reported some effect of the audio on the outcome they measured, across anxiety, cognition, pain and mood.

The authors are careful about what that adds up to. They note that several positive findings rest on measurement tools that were not well matched to the intervention, and they recommend better-designed trials with analysis aimed squarely at the neurophysiological and behavioural effects of entrainment.

Limitations. This is a structured literature review, not a meta-analysis: it counts and describes trials rather than pooling their effect sizes. The Jadad scale is a coarse quality filter, the included trials are mostly small, and the review does not report a formal risk-of-bias assessment. Read it as a map of the trial literature up to 2020, and as evidence that the field is promising but under-tested.

Our analysis

How we graded this study

Each criterion is scored 1–5. Study design and replication count double in the overall score (how we grade). Graded from: abstract and metadata.

Study designSystematic search with Cochrane-style screening and Jadad scoring, but no meta-analysis or risk-of-bias synthesis.
Sample size17 trials scoring 3+ on the Jadad scale, from 674 records.
Control conditionOnly randomized controlled trials were kept; control conditions vary across them.
BlindingJadad scoring rewards blinding, but the review does not report blinding per study.
Outcome measureMixed outcomes across the included trials; the authors call the tools uneven.
ReplicationPools many small trials; the authors themselves say results need confirmation.
Conflicts of interestFunding and conflicts not stated in the abstract.
Peer review & venuePeer-reviewed regional journal, open access.
Overall grade · 3.4 / 5Moderate evidence

Graded by our research agent on Sep 28, 2026. Reviewed by the editor on Oct 14, 2026.

Get updates from the field

A monthly letter: new research, graded, and the claims worth checking. No hype.

Monthly, one click to unsubscribe. See our privacy policy.