SynthesisBMC psychology2026
Traditional Chinese mind-body practices on anxiety levels in university students: a multilevel dose-response meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the association between traditional Chinese mind-body practices and anxiety symptoms in university students and to explore, rather than prescribe, possible dose-response patterns.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception through May 18, 2026. Randomized controlled trials of Taijiquan, Baduanjin, qigong, and related practices were synthesized as standardized mean differences (SMDs) in a three-level random-effects model. Heterogeneity, prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses, and an exploratory Bayesian dose-response model were examined.
resultsSixteen RCTs contributed 18 dependent effect estimates. Comparator subgroup estimates differed significantly (P-interaction = 0.001): Control-NoInt (waitlist or no intervention) yielded SMD = - 0.92 (95% CI - 1.28 to - 0.56), whereas Control-Int (usual care or another intervention control) yielded SMD = - 0.09 (95% CI - 0.38 to 0.56; p = 0.708). The Control-Int estimate was based on only six effect estimates and was underpowered, with a confidence interval compatible with benefit, no effect, or modest harm. Across all comparators, the pooled estimate was SMD = - 0.56 (95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.20; p = 0.002), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 94.1%). The Bayesian curve had a model-estimated turning point near 20.7 cumulative hours; sparse dose coverage, wide uncertainty at the extremes, and between-study heterogeneity preclude treating this value as an optimal prescription.
conclusionsLow-certainty evidence showed materially different estimates by comparator: Control-NoInt favored the practices, whereas the small Control-Int subgroup was inconclusive. The pooled SMD is a heterogeneous average and should not be interpreted as a uniform benefit or as superiority over usual care or another intervention control. High heterogeneity, study-level risk of bias, geographic concentration in China, and indirect dose modeling do not support a precise dose recommendation or routine implementation without confirmatory trials.
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.