SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparative efficacy of different traditional mind-body exercises in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically compare the differential therapeutic effects of various traditional mind-body exercises (TaiChi, Liuzijue, Wuqinxi, Baduanjin, Yijinjing, and Yoga) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through a network meta-analysis, providing evidence-based support and a scientific rationale for developing individualized rehabilitation strategies. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating traditional mind-body exercise interventions in COPD patients. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, and the VIP Database were searched from their inception to June 2025. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, while the network meta-analysis was conducted in Stata 14.0 using the frequentist model. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Results: A total of 83 RCTs comprising 6,707 COPD patients were included. For improving the percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1%), the interventions ranked as follows: Wuqinxi (SUCRA = 82.9%) > Yijinjing (SUCRA = 65.9%) > Liuzijue (SUCRA = 63.5%) > Baduanjin (SUCRA = 63.1%) > Yoga (SUCRA = 47.8%) > TaiChi (SUCRA = 25.3%) > Conventional treatment (SUCRA = 1.5%). For enhancing the 6-min walk test (6MWT), the ranking was: Wuqinxi (SUCRA = 96.7%) > Baduanjin (SUCRA = 80.6%) > TaiChi (SUCRA = 53.1%) > Liuzijue (SUCRA = 49.1%) > Yoga (SUCRA = 42.9%) > Yijinjing (SUCRA = 26.8%) > Conventional treatment (SUCRA = 0.9%). For reducing the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, the ranking was: Yijinjing (SUCRA = 96.7%) > TaiChi (SUCRA = 75.9%) > Wuqinxi (SUCRA = 63.2%) > Baduanjin (SUCRA = 42.4%) > Yoga (SUCRA = 37.7%) > Liuzijue (SUCRA = 33.0%) > Conventional treatment (SUCRA = 1.2%). Conclusion: Wuqinxi demonstrated the greatest benefits in improving pulmonary function and exercise capacity, whereas Yijinjing showed the most significant effects in enhancing quality of life. Different mind-body exercise interventions may promote rehabilitation through distinct physiological and psychological mechanisms. Individualized selection of interventions can be tailored based on patients' functional status and rehabilitation needs. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251051806, identifier CRD420251051806.
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.