ReviewJournal of healthcare engineering2022
Network Meta-Analysis of the Antihypertensive Effect of Traditional Chinese Exercises on Patients with Essential Hypertension.
Review in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of traditional Chinese exercise on older patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of different traditional Chinese exercise in the treatment of essential hypertension: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Influencing factors of hospitalization cost of hypertension patients in traditional Chinese medicine hospitals.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The Effect of Traditional Chinese Exercises on Blood Pressure in Patients with Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, traditional Chinese exercises (TCEs) have been gradually used to reduce the blood pressure levels of patients with essential hypertension. However, there are several types of TCEs, and there is no comparative study on the antihypertensive effects of various TCEs in patients with essential hypertension. Objective: The objective is to compare the therapeutic effects of Taijiquan (TJQ), Baduanjin (BDJ), Wuqinxi (WQX), and Yijinjing (YJJ) on essential hypertension and provide a reference for clinical treatment and scheme optimization. Methods: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, China Scientific Journal Database, China Biology Medicine database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TCEs in the treatment of essential hypertension. The search time was from the establishment of each database to November 2021. After data extraction and quality evaluation, the network meta-analysis was performed with Stata 16.0 and ADDIS 1.16.8. Results: Finally, 45 RCTs involving 3864 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed that YJJ had the best effect in reducing systolic blood pressure, and the difference was statistically significant [MD = -14.27, 95% CI = (-20.53∼-8.08), Conclusion: The results showed that TCEs significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with the control group, and YJJ might be the best choice. However, a larger sample, multicenter, double-blinded, high-quality RCTs are needed to make clear conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.