↓ Skip to main content

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The efficacy of Guolin-Qigong on the body-mind health of Chinese women with breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
Title
RETRACTED ARTICLE: The efficacy of Guolin-Qigong on the body-mind health of Chinese women with breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Quality of Life Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11136-017-1576-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pei Liu, Jieshu You, Wing T. Y. Loo, Youzhi Sun, Yanhua He, Huiping Sit, Lei Jia, Meikuen Wong, Zhiyu Xia, Xiao Zheng, Zhiyu Wang, Neng Wang, Lixing Lao, Jianping Chen

Abstract

This study was to evaluate the efficacy of a complementary Chinese treatment modality Guolin-Qigong (GLQG) for patients with breast cancer on the body-mind health. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted among 158 women with breast cancer. Subjects were randomized to receive GLQG (test group) versus a physical stretching program (control group) following conventional treatment for breast cancer. GLQG and stretching interventions were performed twice a week over 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcome measures included anxiety, depression, and clinical indicators. All participants were assessed at four time-points, at the beginning of the study (T1), after 12 weeks of the intervention (T2), immediately after 24-week intervention (T3), and at 48-week follow-up visit (T4). Improvements in QoL were evident in both groups but the test group fared better than the control group at the 12th week (P < 0.01) and particularly in emotional well-being (P < 0.01) and breast cancer-specific well-being (P < 0.001). The test group showed an improvement in anxiety levels (P < 0.01), whereas the control group showed improvements in depression (P < 0.05) but there was no significant difference between groups (P > 0.05). Both groups showed improvements in immunological function and the test group fared better than the control in TNF-α levels (P < 0.05). The results in subjects who practiced more than 4 times and 6 h per week were similar to that of all subjects; however, the improvement in anxiety in the GLQG group was more obvious. There are positive correlations between QoL and anxiety and depression. Both GLQG and physical stretching are beneficial during recovery following breast cancer. GLQC was more effective in terms of Qol improvements than physical stretching. Both programs brought improvements in anxiety or depression but had were comparable. GLQC group had a greater effect on immunological function than physical exercise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 14 7%
Other 8 4%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 65 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 16%
Psychology 17 9%
Sports and Recreations 15 8%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 69 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 November 2020.
All research outputs
#5,651,998
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#537
of 2,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,298
of 310,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#17
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,910 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 310,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.