4.3 Article

Blood pressure response to transcendental meditation: A meta-analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 310-316

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2007.65

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Prior clinical trials suggest that the Transcendental Meditation technique may decrease blood pressure of normotensive and hypertensive individuals but study-quality issues have been raised. This study was designed to assess effects of Transcendental Meditation on blood pressure using objective quality assessments and meta-analyses. METHODS PubMed and Cochrane databases through December 2006 and collected publications on Transcendental Meditation were searched. Randomized, controlled trials comparing blood pressure responses to the Transcendental Meditation technique with a control group were evaluated. Primary outcome measures were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure after practicing Transcendental Meditation or following control procedures. A specific rating system (0-20 points) was used to evaluate studies and random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. RESULTS Nine randomized, controlled trials met eligibility criteria. Study-quality scores ranged from low (score, 7) to high (16) with three studies of high quality (15 or 16) and three of acceptable quality (11 or 12). The random-effects meta-analysis model for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, indicated that Transcendental Meditation, compared to control, was associated with the following changes: -4.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (0), -7.4 to -1.9 mm Hg) and -3.2 mm Hg (95% Cl, -5.4 to -1.3 mm Hg). Subgroup analyses of hypertensive groups and high-quality studies showed similar reductions. CONCLUSIONS The regular practice of Transcendental Meditation may have the potential to reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure by similar to 4.7 and 3.2 mm Hg, respectively. These are clinically meaningful changes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available