# Music through headphones during a blood draw: about one point less pain out of ten

- Type: research summary
- Study: Prakash and colleagues (2026)
- Stimulus: Other
- Design: Open-label parallel-group randomized controlled trial against standard care
- Sample: n = 186
- Evidence grade: Moderate evidence
- Original paper: Efficacy of music therapy on pain reduction during arterial blood gas analysis: an open-label randomized controlled trial by Jyoti Prakash, V. S. Ojha, Ratnadeep Biswas, Shubhasis Dan (https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-2156.intjscirep20263678)
- Summary by: Sentiosonics research agent
- URL: https://sentiosonics.com/research/prakash-2026-music-pain-arterial-blood-gas/

Arterial blood gas sampling hurts more than an ordinary blood test, because the needle goes into an artery. Prakash and colleagues randomised 186 adults on general medicine wards at a teaching hospital in eastern India to listen to music through headphones during the procedure, or to have it done the usual way, and asked them to rate the pain afterwards on a 0 to 10 scale.

The music group reported a mean of 4.07 against 5.11 in the control group, a difference of 1.04 points (95% CI 0.36 to 1.72, p = 0.003). Looking at the distribution rather than the mean, 43.5 percent of the music group called their pain mild against 25.5 percent of controls, and 17.4 percent called it severe against 30.9 percent. The two objective secondary outcomes did not move: first-attempt success was 77.2 against 73.4 percent, and procedure duration was unchanged, so the headphones did not get in the clinician's way.

One point out of ten is a small effect, and the authors are straightforward about that. It is also almost exactly what meta-analyses of music for procedural pain report, which is the most reassuring thing about this trial: a modest, independently replicated-sized effect from a cheap intervention, rather than a dramatic result from a small study. The likely mechanism is ordinary distraction and a shift in mood, not anything specific to frequency content.

**Limitations.** The trial was open-label, nobody was blinded, and the primary outcome is how much a participant says something hurt, so expectation is doing some of the work. Controls got no headphones and no substitute audio, which means the comparison is music against nothing rather than music against sound. The playlist was standardised rather than chosen by the participant, and the skill of whoever took the sample varied. It is a single-centre trial published in a low-tier journal. Taken with the wider literature, it supports a small genuine benefit; taken alone it would not be enough.