4.7 Review

Tai chi for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 11, Pages 1648-1651

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem151

Keywords

tai chi; rheumatoid arthritis; pain

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate data from controlled clinical trials testing the effectiveness of tai chi for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Systematic searches were conducted on Medline, Pubmed, AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1, the UK National Research Register and ClinicalTrials.gov, Korean medical databases, Qigong and Energy Medicine Database and Chinese databases up to January 2007. Hand-searches included conference proceedings and our own files. There were no restrictions regarding the language of publication. All controlled trials of tai chi for patients with RA were considered for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score. The searches identified 45 potentially relevant studies. Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and three non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) met all inclusion criteria. The included RCTs reported some positive findings for tai chi on disability index, quality of life, depression and mood for RA patients. Two RCTs assessed pain outcomes and did not demonstrate effectiveness on pain reduction compared with education plus stretching exercise and usual activity control. The extent of heterogeneity in these RCTs prevented a meaningful meta-analysis. Currently there are few trials testing the effectiveness of tai chi in the management of RA. The studies that are available are of low methodological quality. Collectively this evidence is not convincing enough to suggest that tai chi is an effective treatment for RA. The value of tai chi for this indication therefore remains unproven.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available