Objectives. This systematic review aims to summarize the existing literature on Tai Chi randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and recommend Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations. Methods. A systematic search for Tai Chi RCTs was conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science) from their inception to December 2019. SPSS 20.0 software and Microsoft Excel 2019 were used to analyze the data, and the risk of bias tool in the RevMan 5.3.5 software was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs. Results. A total of 139 articles were identified, including diseased populations (95, 68.3%) and healthy populations (44, 31.7%). The diseased populations included the following 10 disease types: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue diseases (34.7%), circulatory system diseases (23.2%), mental and behavioral disorders (12.6%), nervous system diseases (11.6%), respiratory system diseases (6.3%), endocrine, nutritional or metabolic diseases (5.3%), neoplasms (3.2%), injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (1.1%), genitourinary system diseases (1.1%), and diseases of the eye and adnexa (1.1%). Tai Chi exercise prescription was generally classified as moderate intensity. The most commonly applied Tai Chi style was Yang style (92, 66.2%), and the most frequently specified Tai Chi form was simplified 24-form Tai Chi (43, 30.9%). 12 weeks and 24 weeks, 2-3 times a week, and 60 min each time was the most commonly used cycle, frequency, and time of exercise in Tai Chi exercise prescriptions. Conclusions. We recommend the more commonly used Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations based on clinical evidence of Tai Chi. Further clinical research on Tai Chi should be combined with principles of exercise prescription to conduct large-sample epidemiological studies and long-term prospective follow-up studies to provide more substantive clinical evidence for Tai Chi exercise prescriptions.
1. Introduction
Chronic diseases cause a large burden of disease in the world and affect the quality of life of individuals [1, 2]. Furthermore, almost half of the global population suffers from at least one chronic disease and may be at risk of functional decline and disability [3, 4]. Exercise therapy is a safe way to improve physical function and reduce disability in patients with chronic diseases [5]. In the past few decades, exercise has been widely used in the treatment of chronic diseases, and experts have begun to adopt the terms “exercise prescription” and “exercise therapy” [5]. Exercise prescription mainly includes the type, frequency, duration, and intensity of exercise. It is a scientific, systematic, and individualized exercise intervention program for disease prevention and health promotion.
Tai Chi is a complementary and alternative therapy that has become a widespread exercise worldwide [6]. Over the past two decades, researchers have conducted extensive studies of the health-promoting effects of Tai Chi by focusing on various systems of the human body and their corresponding diseases. Studies have shown that Tai Chi is beneficial for patients with a wide range of diseases [7] and is a safe and effective way to promote balance control, flexibility, and cardiovascular fitness in patients with chronic diseases [8]. Tai Chi has been widely used in the clinical practice of different diseases and people, and their positive effects have been confirmed, but there is no clear guidance on how to incorporate it into exercise prescriptions [9]. A study adopted an evaluation instrument to reveal the characteristics of Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for improving the balance ability of the elderly, but this study has not yet conducted studies on Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations [10]. In addition, Tai Chi has been shown to be effective in treating diverse diseases, but such treatment effects are not consistent across studies, such as type 2 diabetes. [11–13]. This may be affected by the difference in Tai Chi style and exercise time in Tai Chi exercise prescriptions because a study has confirmed that different Tai Chi styles and exercise time can result in variable effectiveness [14].
A systematic review involves identifying a specific problem, systematically collecting relevant articles, determining which articles meet the predetermined inclusion criteria, evaluating previous reports, implementing rigorous scientific analysis, and forming a reliable comprehensive conclusion for reference in clinical application [15]. A systematic review is the basis of evidence-based medicine and is considered at the highest level of medical evidence [16]. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered to have the highest level of credibility and hence are considered the gold standard for evidence-based clinical practice [17]. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and analyze the effects of Tai Chi exercise prescriptions in Tai Chi RCTs, in order to recommend common Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and individuals and provide a reference for the clinical application and experimental research on Tai Chi exercise prescription.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
Five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant studies published up until December 2019. The search terms used for this systematic review included “Tai Chi,” “Tai Chi Chuan,” “T’ai Chi,” “Tai Ji,” “Taiji,” and “Tai Ji Quan.” The language was restricted to English. Taking a specific strategy as an example, the search terms in the PubMed database were as follows: ((((((Tai Chi [Title/Abstract]) OR (Tai Chi Chuan [Title/Abstract])) OR (T’ai Chi [Title/Abstract])) OR (Tai Ji[Title/Abstract])) OR (Taiji [Title/Abstract])) OR (Tai Ji Quan [Title/Abstract]) AND (humans[Filter])) AND ((randomized controlled trial[Publication Type] OR randomized[Title/Abstract] OR placebo[Title/Abstract]) AND (humans[Filter])).
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
This study strictly followed the PRISMA statement and the principle of PICOS (participants, intervention, control, outcomes, and study design) to formulate the criteria for literature retrieval, inclusion, screening, and exclusion [18].
2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria
Studies included in this review had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) the trial was a randomized control trial (RCT), either individual or cluster randomized; (2) any study participants were included, regardless of region, age, gender, and current health condition; (3) Tai Chi was the main intervention, without a limitation based on the type of Tai Chi prescribed; (4) the control group was nonexercise or the exercise was not Tai Chi; (5) outcome indicators were not restricted.
2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria
Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: (1) irrelevant discussion or application of Tai Chi or interventions that lacked Tai Chi; (2) duplicate studies; (3) review, case report, meeting abstract, or monograph; (4) unclear outcome indicators; (5) no data or incomplete data; (6) not RCT.
2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction
For this systematic review, two researchers independently read the titles, abstracts, and full text of research studies and conducted literature screening and data extraction according to the above inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved either by consensus between the two researchers or by asking a third researcher to make a final decision. The following data were extracted: first author, publication year, study design, participants, intervention characteristics (i.e., type, duration, time, frequency), and outcome measures.
2.4. Quality Assessment
Based on the bias risk assessment tool recommended by the Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook (2011) [19], two researchers independently assessed the methodological quality and the bias risk of each included literature. The assessed items included the presence of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and the presence of other biases. Based on these criteria, the literature included was divided into the high risk of bias, low risk of bias, and unclear risk of bias categories. Disagreements between the two researchers were resolved by discussion with a third researcher.
2.5. Data Analysis
Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted. We performed descriptive data analysis using SPSS 20.0 and Microsoft Excel 2019. Data were presented in terms of counts, percentage, and frequency.
3. Results
3.1. Selection of Studies
A total of 8529 articles were obtained according to the search strategy. These articles were imported into EndNote X9, and duplicates were eliminated. The remaining 6714 articles were then subject to the screening on the basis of the title and abstract, resulting in the exclusion of 5951 studies. The remaining 763 articles were further screened by reading the full-text article and 624 articles were excluded. Finally, this review included 139 qualitative studies (see Figure 1).