| Literature DB >> 33808633 |
Mei-Lan Chen1,2, Stephanie B Wotiz1, Starr M Banks1, Sabine A Connors1, Yuyin Shi3.
Abstract
Previous studies indicated that Tai Chi might be an effective way to improve or prevent cognitive impairments in older populations. However, existing research does not provide clear recommendations about the optimal dose of Tai Chi practice, which is the most effective in improving cognitive function in older adults. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the dose-response relationship between Tai Chi and cognition in community-dwelling older adults. A total of 16 studies with 1121 subjects were included in this study. Meta-regression analyses of Tai Chi duration (Tai Chi session duration, Tai Chi practice duration per week, study duration, and Tai Chi practice duration for the entire study) on the study effect size (ES) were performed to examine the dose-response association of Tai Chi and cognition. The results showed that there was a positive effect of Tai Chi on cognitive function, but there were no statistically significant dose duration effects on cognition. The findings suggest that Tai Chi has beneficial effects on cognitive function, but a longer duration was not associated with larger effects. In order to establish evidence-based clinical interventions using Tai Chi, future research should clearly demonstrate intervention protocol, particularly the style and intensity of Tai Chi.Entities:
Keywords: PRISMA statement guideline; Tai Chi; cognitive function; cognitive impairment; dose–response relationship; exercise; meta-analysis; older adults
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33808633 PMCID: PMC8003349 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18063179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart for review and selection of studies in the systematic review.
Characteristics of the included Tai Chi studies on the cognitive function in community-dwelling older adults.
| Studies/ | Study Design | Study Population | Tai Chi Style | Intervention Modality | Total Tai Chi Dose | Control Group | Cognitive Outcome Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chu et al. 2014 [ | Cross-sectional | I: | Not Specified | At least 30 min a day, 3 times/week for 6 months | 2160 min | No exercise | MMSE 1 |
| Hung et al. 2013 [ | Quasi experimental | I: | Not Specified | 90 min/session | 1440 min | No exercise | MMSE 1 |
| Kasai et al. 2010 [ | Non-randomized experimental | I: | Yang-style | 60 min/session | 1560 min * including warm up and cool down | No exercise | RBMT 3 |
| Lu et al. 2013 [ | Cross-sectional | I: | Not Specified | Minimum weekly 1.5 h practice for 3 years | 14,040 min | No exercise | Auditory Stroop Test |
| Lu et al. 2016 [ | RCT | I: | Yang style | 60 min/session | 2880 min | No exercise, | Auditory Stroop Test |
| Man et al. 2010 [ | Cross-sectional | I: | Ng style | at least 45 min per session, 3 times/week for 3 years | 21060 min | No exercise | HKLLT 7 |
| Mortimer et al. 2012 [ | RCT | I: | Not Specified | 20 min/session | 2400 min | C: No exercise | Mattis Dementia Rating Scale |
| Nguyen et al. 2012 [ | RCT | I: | 24-form | 30 min/session | 1440 min | No exercise | Trail Making Test |
| Orozco Calderon et al. 2016 [ | Cross-sectional | I: | Yang-style | 4 h/week for 4.5 years | Not specified | No exercise | COGNISTAT Test |
| Overton-McCoy 2010 | Cross-sectional | I: | Not Specified | 1–2 times per week; average of 60 min per week for a minimum of one month | Not specified | No exercise | MMSE 1 |
| Sun et al. 2015 [ | RCT | I: | 24-form | 60 min/session | 3120 min | No exercise | MMSE 1 |
| Sungkarat et al. 2017 [ | RCT | I: | 10-form | 30 min/session | 1350 min | Health education related to cognitive and fall prevention | Logical Memory Delayed Recall Score; |
| Tao et al. 2016 [ | RCT | I: | 24-form | 30 min/session | 1800 min | Health education | Weschler Memory Scale—Chinese Revision |
| Taylor-Piliae et al. 2010 [ | RCT | I: | 12 short-form | Daily practice encouraged for 6 months | Not specified | Health education | Animal-Naming Test |
| Tsang et al. 2013 [ | Cross-sectional | I: | Not Specified | Minimum 90 min/week for 3 years | 14,040 min | No exercise | EMG 11 Reaction Time |
| Varghese et al. 2016 [ | Cross-sectional | I: | Not Specified | Minimum 100 h in past year | Not specified | No exercise | Reaction Time |
Note: I: Intervention group (Tai Chi group); C: Control group; C2: Second control group; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trail; 1 Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); 2 Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); 3 Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (RBMT); 4 Subjective Memory Complaint Scale (SMC); 5 Digit Span Forward (DSF); 6 Digit Span Backward (DSB); 7 Hong Kong List Learning Test (HKLLT); 8 Boston Naming Test (BNT); 9 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R); 10 Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB); 11 Electromyographic (EMG).
Summary of methodological quality assessment of the included Tai Chi studies.
| Studies | Average Component Ratings (1–3 score) | Average Global Rating | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection Bias | Study Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data Collection Methods | Withdrawals and Dropouts | ||
| Chu et al. 2014 [ | 3.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 3.00 |
| Hung et al. 2013 [ | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Kasai et al. 2010 [ | 2.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 |
| Lu et al. 2013 [ | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.33 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.33 |
| Lu et al. 2016 [ | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Man et al. 2010 [ | 1.33 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Mortimer et al. 2012 [ | 1.67 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Nguyen et al. 2012 [ | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 2.33 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.67 |
| Orozco Calderon et al. 2016 [ | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.00 |
| Overton-McCoy 2010 [ | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 |
| Sun et al. 2015 [ | 2.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 |
| Sungkarat et al. 2017 [ | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Tao et al. 2016 [ | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 |
| Taylor-Piliae et al. 2010 [ | 2.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.33 |
| Tsang et al. 2013 [ | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.33 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.67 |
| Varghese et al. 2016 [ | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.33 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.33 |
Note: Component Ratings 1: Strong (low risk of bias), 2: Moderate (moderate risk of bias), 3: Weak (high risk of bias); Global Rating 1: Strong (no weak ratings; low risk of bias), 2: Moderate (one weak rating; moderate risk of bias), 3: Weak (two or more weak ratings; high risk of bias).
Figure 2Forest plot of effect sizes (ESs) from the 16 studies that assessed the effect of Tai Chi on cognitive function (Tai Chi group vs. control group).
Summary of meta-regression analysis examining moderator variables that might explain between-study variance in effect size.
| Moderator Variable | Slope | |
|---|---|---|
| Tai Chi session duration (min) | −0.0025 min−1 | 0.8115 |
| Tai Chi practice duration per week (min) | −0.0020 min−1 | 0.2380 |
| Study duration (weeks) | −0.0005 wk−1 | 0.7913 |
| Tai Chi practice duration for entire study (min) | −0.0000 min−1 | 0.6588 |
Figure 3Funnel plot of study effect size (ES) vs. study standard error.