↓ Skip to main content

Tai Chi for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tai Chi for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009953.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shirley PC Ngai, Alice YM Jones, Wilson Wai San Tam

Abstract

Tai Chi, a systematic callisthenic exercise first developed in ancient China, involves a series of slow and rhythmic circular motions. It emphasises use of 'mind' or concentration to control breathing and circular body motions to facilitate flow of internal energy (i.e. 'qi') within the body. Normal flow of 'qi' is believed to be essential to sustain body homeostasis, ultimately leading to longevity. The effect of Tai Chi on balance and muscle strength in the elderly population has been reported; however, the effect of Tai Chi on dyspnoea, exercise capacity, pulmonary function and psychosocial status among people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unclear. • To explore the effectiveness of Tai Chi in reducing dyspnoea and improving exercise capacity in people with COPD.• To determine the influence of Tai Chi on physiological and psychosocial functions among people with COPD. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (which included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO); handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts; and searched Chinese medical databases including Wanfang Data, Chinese Medical Current Contents (CMCC), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), China Journal Net (CJN) and China Medical Academic Conference (CMAC), from inception to September 2015. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for relevant additional references. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Tai Chi (Tai Chi alone or Tai Chi in addition to another intervention) versus control (usual care or another intervention identical to that used in the Tai Chi group) in people with COPD. Two independent review authors screened and selected studies. Two independent review authors extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias on the basis of suggested criteria listed in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We extracted post-programme data and entered them into RevMan software (version 5.3) for data synthesis and analysis. We included a total of 984 participants from 12 studies (23 references) in this analysis. We included only those involved in Tai Chi and the control group (i.e. 811 participants) in the final analysis. Study sample size ranged from 10 to 206, and mean age ranged from 61 to 74 years. Programmes lasted for six weeks to one year. All included studies were RCTs; three studies used allocation concealment, six reported blinded outcome assessors and three studies adopted an intention-to-treat approach to statistical analysis. No adverse events were reported. Quality of evidence of the outcomes ranged from very low to moderate.Analysis was split into three comparisons: (1) Tai Chi versus usual care; (2) Tai Chi and breathing exercise versus breathing exercise alone; and (3) Tai Chi and exercise versus exercise alone.Comparison of Tai Chi versus usual care revealed that Tai Chi demonstrated a longer six-minute walk distance (mean difference (MD) 29.64 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.52 to 48.77 metres; participants = 318; I(2) = 59%) and better pulmonary function (i.e. forced expiratory volume in one second, MD 0.11 L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.20 L; participants = 258; I(2) = 0%) in post-programme data. However, the effects of Tai Chi in reducing dyspnoea level and improving quality of life remain inconclusive. Data are currently insufficient for evaluating the impact of Tai Chi on maximal exercise capacity, balance and muscle strength in people with COPD. Comparison of Tai Chi and other interventions (i.e. breathing exercise or exercise) versus other interventions shows no superiority and no additional effects on symptom improvement nor on physical and psychosocial outcomes with Tai Chi. No adverse events were reported, implying that Tai Chi is safe to practise in people with COPD. Evidence of very low to moderate quality suggests better functional capacity and pulmonary function in post-programme data for Tai Chi versus usual care. When Tai Chi in addition to other interventions was compared with other interventions alone, Tai Chi did not show superiority and showed no additional effects on symptoms nor on physical and psychosocial function improvement in people with COPD. With the diverse style and number of forms being adopted in different studies, the most beneficial protocol of Tai Chi style and number of forms could not be commented upon. Hence, future studies are warranted to address these topics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 24%
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Unspecified 30 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 23%
Unspecified 34 18%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Psychology 9 5%
Other 32 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 31 July 2019.
All research outputs
#448,413
of 13,633,853 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,333
of 10,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,259
of 263,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#36
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,633,853 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 263,527 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.