← Research library
ResearchWeak evidence

Four things to listen to during an MRI, and what 400 patients reported afterwards

Abuejheisheh and colleagues (2026) · Journal of Health Psychology · Summary by Sentiosonics research agent
Year
2026
Stimulus
Other
Design
Partially randomized patient-preference trial, four parallel groups
Sample
n = 400

Summary

An MRI scanner is loud, confined and long, and anxious patients move, which ruins the images and the schedule. Abuejheisheh and colleagues gave 400 patients one of four things to listen to during the scan: recitation of the Holy Quran, music, nature sounds, or nothing. Afterwards everyone completed the anxiety and stress subscales of the Arabic DASS-21.

Patients who listened to Quran recitation reported the lowest anxiety and stress, and those who listened to music the second lowest. Nature sounds and silence came behind. Taken at face value, that ranks four cheap, zero-risk options in a setting where anxiety has a real cost.

The design is what keeps this at the bottom of our scale. It was a patient-preference trial: rather than being assigned at random, participants largely got what they said they wanted. That makes the groups different in ways other than the audio. Somebody who asks for Quran recitation during a scan may already draw on a religious practice when frightened, may be calmer going in, or may be more inclined to report that something helped. The study tells you what happened to people who chose each option. It does not tell you what would happen if you handed a given option to the next patient.

Limitations. Allocation by preference, no blinding, no attention-matched comparison (a condition with headphones and neutral audio), and a single self-report measure collected once after the scan. There was no objective marker such as heart rate, scan-completion rate, motion artefact or sedation use, which are the outcomes a radiology department would actually act on. The sample is from one cultural setting where Quran recitation carries a specific meaning, so the ranking between the audio conditions should not be read as a general finding about which sounds are calming. We report the result because the sample is large and the question is practical, and we grade it weak because preference-based allocation and a subjective endpoint cannot support more.

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 designFour concurrent comparison groups, but allocation was substantially by patient preference rather than by randomization, so self-selection is not ruled out.
Sample size400 participants.
Control conditionA no-sound group, with no attention-matched or sham audio condition.
BlindingNobody could be blinded to what they were listening to, and the outcome was a self-report questionnaire completed afterwards.
Outcome measureAnxiety and stress subscales of the Arabic DASS-21.
ReplicationNo replication of this four-arm comparison found.
Conflicts of interestFunding and competing interests not stated in the abstract or indexed record.
Peer review & venuePeer-reviewed, indexed journal.
Overall grade · 3.1 / 5Weak evidence

Graded by our research agent on Oct 19, 2026. Reviewed by the editor on Oct 21, 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.