| Literature DB >> 35309256 |
Caixia Hu1, Xiaohui Qin1,2, Minqing Jiang1, Miaoqing Tan1, Shuying Liu1, Yuhua Lu1, Changting Lin1, Richun Ye1.
Abstract
Background: Tai chi (TC) has received increased attention in stroke rehabilitation, yet services are greatly underutilized. An increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) have begun to investigate the effects of TC on balance function in stroke patients. The aim of this current study was to systematically collate, appraise, and synthesize the results of these SRs/MAs using a systematic overview.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35309256 PMCID: PMC8926482 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3895514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
Figure 1Literature selection procedure.
Study characteristics.
| Reviews | Country | Simple | Treatment intervention | Control intervention | Quality assessment | Meta-analysis | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng [ | China | 8 (1297) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Cochrane criteria | Yes | Balance functions and exercise capacities of stroke patients improved after they did TC exercise regularly. |
|
| |||||||
| Wu [ | China | 6 (347) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Jadad | Yes | These findings indicated that TC is superior to the CRT in the improvement of balance function, gait speed, and quality of life. |
|
| |||||||
| Li [ | China | 5 (346) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Cochrane criteria | Yes | TC may be beneficial for balance function in stroke survivors in the short term, but further RCTs with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm this conclusion. |
|
| |||||||
| Lyu [ | China | 21 (1293) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Cochrane criteria | Yes | TC was beneficial on ADL, balance, limb motor function, and walking ability among stroke survivors. |
|
| |||||||
| Li [ | China | 17 (1209) | TC | CRT | Cochrane criteria | Yes | TC was superior to the CRT in the improvement of balance function and quality of life. However, there were no significant differences in walking function. |
|
| |||||||
| Wang [ | China | 8 (408) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Jadad | Yes | TC was superior to the CRT in the improvement of balance ability and motor function. |
|
| |||||||
| Qin [ | China | 15 (1016) | TC | CRT | Jadad | Yes | These findings indicated that TC was superior to the CRT in the improvement of balance function, gait speed, and quality of life. |
|
| |||||||
| Miao [ | China | 9 (698) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Cochrane criteria | Yes | The study indicated that TC could improve the balance function for stroke patients. However, further large, long-term RCTs with standard evaluation indicators are needed to confirm this conclusion. |
|
| |||||||
| Li [ | China | 7 (629) | TC and TC+CRT | CRT | Cochrane criteria | Yes | These findings indicated that TC was superior to the CRT in the improvement of balance function, gait speed, and quality of life. |
Figure 2AMSTAR-2 assessments.
Result of the PRISMA assessments.
| Section/topic | Items | Zheng 2021 | Wu 2018 | Li 2018 | Lyu 2018 | Li 2017 | Wang 2018 | Qin 2016 | Miao 2016 | Li 2016 | Compliance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Q1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% |
| Abstract | Q2 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% |
| Introduction | Q3 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% |
| Q4 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Methods | Q5 | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 22.2% |
| Q6 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q8 | Y | PY | PY | Y | Y | Y | Y | PY | PY | 55.6% | |
| Q9 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q10 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q11 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q12 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q13 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q14 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q15 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 77.8% | |
| Q16 | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 66.7% | |
| Results | Q17 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% |
| Q18 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q19 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q20 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q21 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q22 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 88.9% | |
| Q23 | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 66.7% | |
| Discussion | Q24 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% |
| Q25 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Q26 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100% | |
| Funding | Q27 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 88.9% |
Results of evidence quality.
| Review | Outcomes | Certainty assessment | No. of patients | Relative effect (95% CI) |
| Quality | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of trails | Design | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Experimental | Control | |||||
| Zheng [ | BBC | 6 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | No | No | 231 | 181 | MD 7.67 (3.44, 11.90) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ |
| FMA | 5 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | No | No | 335 | 321 | MD 4.15 (1.68, 6.63) | 0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ | |
| SPPB | 2 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | Seriousc | No | 69 | 60 | MD -0.22 (-1.00, 0.56) | 0.589 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Wu [ | BBC | 3 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | Seriousc | Seriousd | MD 4.823 (2.138, 7.508) | <0.001 | ⨁◯◯◯◯ | ||
| SPPB | 2 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | Seriousc | Seriousd | MD 0.293 (-0.099, 0.685) | 0.14 | ⨁◯◯◯◯ | |||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Li [ | Gait ability (TUG and SPBB) | 4 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | No | Seriousd | 151 | 133 | SMD -0.26 (-0.50, -0.03) | 0.027 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ |
| Balance (SPBB, DGI, and FRT) | 3 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | No | Seriousd | 77 | 71 | SMD 0.15 (-0.27, 0.58) | 0.475 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Lyu [ | FMA | 3 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | Seriousc | No | 85 | 81 | MD 2.75 (0.95, 4.56) | 0.003 | ⨁⨁◯◯◯ |
| BBS | 2 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | Seriousc | No | 75 | 75 | MD 5.23 (3.42, 7.05) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ | |
| Holden scale | 3 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | Seriousc | No | 94 | 92 | MD 0.61 (0.38, 0.85) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ | |
| TUG | 5 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | No | No | 200 | 180 | MD 2.59 (1.76, 3.43) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Li [ | BBS | 9 | Rct | No | Seriousb | No | No | No | 333 | 337 | MD 9.34 (6.49, 12.19) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯ |
| Walking (TUG and Holden scale) | 4 | Rct | No | Seriousb | No | No | No | 259 | 248 | MD 0.84 (-0.31, 0.55) | 0.05 | ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Wang [ | BBS | 6 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | Seriousc | No | 118 | 118 | SMD 2.49 (0.90, 4.07) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁◯◯◯ |
| FMA | 3 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | Seriousc | No | 64 | 64 | SMD 0.84 (-0.91, 2.58) | 0.35 | ⨁⨁◯◯◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Qin [27] | Balance (BBS, SPBB, and DGI) | 9 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | No | No | 283 | 275 | MD 2.49 (0.90, 4.07) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ |
| Walking (SPBB and TUG) | 4 | Rct | Seriousa | Seriousb | No | No | No | 129 | 120 | MD 0.27 (0.04, 0.50) | 0.02 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Miao [ | BBS | 7 | Rct | No | Seriousb | No | No | Seriousd | 344 | 379 | MD 11.43 (7.43, 15.42) | <0.001 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ |
| FMA | 2 | Rct | No | Seriousb | No | Seriousc | Seriousd | 110 | 114 | MD 12.77 (-5.07, 30.60) | 0.16 | ⨁⨁◯◯◯ | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Li [ | BBS | 2 | Rct | Seriousa | No | No | No | Seriousd | 283 | 306 | MD 6.36 (5.23, 7.49) | <0.01 | ⨁⨁⨁◯◯ |
CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; SMD: standardized mean difference; athe experimental design had a large bias in random and distributive findings or was blind; bthe confidence interval overlap less, the heterogeneity test P was very small, and the I2 was larger; cthe confidence interval was not narrow enough, or the simple size is too small; dfunnel graph asymmetry, or fewer studies were included, and there may have been greater publication bias.