| Title |
Tai chi for breast cancer patients: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-010-0741-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myeong Soo Lee, Tae-Young Choi, Edzard Ernst |
| Abstract |
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of tai chi for supportive breast cancer care. Eleven databases were searched from inception through December 2009. Controlled trials testing tai chi in patients with breast cancer that assessed clinical outcome measures were considered. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validations were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and four non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) met our inclusion criteria. The three RCTs tested the effects of tai chi on breast cancer care compared with walking exercise, psychological support therapy, or spiritual growth or standard health care and showed no significant differences between tai chi and these control procedures in quality of life and psychological and physical outcome measures. The meta-analysis also failed to demonstrate significant effects of tai chi compared with control interventions (n = 38, SMD, 0.45, 95% CI -0.25 to 1.14, P = 0.21; heterogeneity: chi(2) = 0.23, P = 0.63; I (2) = 0%). All of the four CCTs showed favorable effects of tai chi. Three trials suggested effectiveness in psychological and physical outcome measures, whereas one study was too poorly reported to be evaluated in detail. All of the CCTs had a high risk of bias. Collectively, the existing trial evidence does not show convincingly that tai chi is effective for supportive breast cancer care. Future studies should be of high methodological quality, with a particular emphasis on including an adequate control intervention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 27 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,728,629
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#417
of 4,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,078
of 164,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.