| Title |
Body Composition Outcomes of Tai Chi and Qigong Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12529-018-9725-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linda K. Larkey, Dara James, Michael Belyea, Mihyun Jeong, Lisa L. Smith |
| Abstract |
Meditative movement (MM) practices are increasingly being studied, including examination of the potential for these modalities to contribute to weight management. A search was conducted for randomized controlled trials testing one or both of two forms of MM, Tai Chi and Qigong, reporting effects on changes in body composition. Data from these studies were extracted and tabled, and a meta-analysis of studies with inactive control conditions was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed, and seven RCTs had a low risk of bias. Sources of bias include publication bias and selection of English only. Publications meeting inclusion criteria yielded 24 studies (N = 1621 participants). Significant improvements in body composition, primarily body mass index, were noted for 41.7% of studies. A synthesis table describes the distribution of design factors, including type of comparison condition (inactive vs. active) and baseline body composition status (whether or not overweight/obese). A meta-analysis was conducted on 12 studies with inactive controls (using a random effects model) finding a small-to-medium treatment effect (SMD = - 0.388, CI = [- 0.732, - 0.044], t = 2.48, p < 0.03) for TC or QG interventions with a high level of heterogeneity. Tai Chi and Qigong show demonstrable effects on body composition, when compared to inactive control conditions. Systematic evaluation and valid conclusions regarding the impact of Tai Chi and Qigong on body composition outcomes will require more targeted study designs and control of comparison conditions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 47 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 45 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,568,674
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#384
of 909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,572
of 331,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,171 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.