The safety of tai chi

A meta-analysis of adverse events in randomized controlled trials

Hua Cui, Qiuyu Wang, Maja Pedersen, Qi Wang, Shaojun Lv, Dara James, Linda Larkey

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objectives: To review current publications to examine safety of tai chi (TC). Design: Cochrane Library, EBSCO host and MEDLINE/PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including TC as the core intervention and reporting adverse events (AEs). Data were extracted considering active vs. inactive control group comparisons and presence of an AE monitoring protocol. Meta-analyses were conducted for overall results as well as control group and reporting specific conditions. Results: In 256 RCTs of TC, 24 met eligibility criteria (1794 participants) and were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The frequency of non-serious, serious and intervention-related AEs were not found to be significantly different between TC and inactive or active control conditions. In studies with an AE monitoring protocol, more non-serious adverse events (RD = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.10; P = 0.05) were reported for TC compared to inactive interventions. Given the higher overall AE risks related to studies of participants with heart failure, additional analyses examined this set separately. More serious AEs were found for inactive interventions compared with TC in studies with heart failure participants (RD = −0.11; 95% CI: −0.20, −0.03; P = 0.01). Conclusion: Findings indicate that TC does not result in more AEs than active and inactive control conditions, and produces fewer AEs than inactive control conditions for heart failure patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)85-92
Number of pages8
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume82
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tai Ji
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Safety
Heart Failure
Control Groups
PubMed
MEDLINE
Libraries

Keywords

  • Adverse events
  • Meta-analysis
  • Review
  • Safety
  • Tai chi

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

The safety of tai chi : A meta-analysis of adverse events in randomized controlled trials. / Cui, Hua; Wang, Qiuyu; Pedersen, Maja; Wang, Qi; Lv, Shaojun; James, Dara; Larkey, Linda.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol. 82, 01.07.2019, p. 85-92.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Cui, Hua ; Wang, Qiuyu ; Pedersen, Maja ; Wang, Qi ; Lv, Shaojun ; James, Dara ; Larkey, Linda. / The safety of tai chi : A meta-analysis of adverse events in randomized controlled trials. In: Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2019 ; Vol. 82. pp. 85-92.
@article{74ea92fd7f8b44bd942cd81c01220443,
title = "The safety of tai chi: A meta-analysis of adverse events in randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "Objectives: To review current publications to examine safety of tai chi (TC). Design: Cochrane Library, EBSCO host and MEDLINE/PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including TC as the core intervention and reporting adverse events (AEs). Data were extracted considering active vs. inactive control group comparisons and presence of an AE monitoring protocol. Meta-analyses were conducted for overall results as well as control group and reporting specific conditions. Results: In 256 RCTs of TC, 24 met eligibility criteria (1794 participants) and were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The frequency of non-serious, serious and intervention-related AEs were not found to be significantly different between TC and inactive or active control conditions. In studies with an AE monitoring protocol, more non-serious adverse events (RD = 0.05; 95{\%} CI: 0.00, 0.10; P = 0.05) were reported for TC compared to inactive interventions. Given the higher overall AE risks related to studies of participants with heart failure, additional analyses examined this set separately. More serious AEs were found for inactive interventions compared with TC in studies with heart failure participants (RD = −0.11; 95{\%} CI: −0.20, −0.03; P = 0.01). Conclusion: Findings indicate that TC does not result in more AEs than active and inactive control conditions, and produces fewer AEs than inactive control conditions for heart failure patients.",
keywords = "Adverse events, Meta-analysis, Review, Safety, Tai chi",
author = "Hua Cui and Qiuyu Wang and Maja Pedersen and Qi Wang and Shaojun Lv and Dara James and Linda Larkey",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2019.06.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "82",
pages = "85--92",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The safety of tai chi

T2 - A meta-analysis of adverse events in randomized controlled trials

AU - Cui, Hua

AU - Wang, Qiuyu

AU - Pedersen, Maja

AU - Wang, Qi

AU - Lv, Shaojun

AU - James, Dara

AU - Larkey, Linda

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To review current publications to examine safety of tai chi (TC). Design: Cochrane Library, EBSCO host and MEDLINE/PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including TC as the core intervention and reporting adverse events (AEs). Data were extracted considering active vs. inactive control group comparisons and presence of an AE monitoring protocol. Meta-analyses were conducted for overall results as well as control group and reporting specific conditions. Results: In 256 RCTs of TC, 24 met eligibility criteria (1794 participants) and were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The frequency of non-serious, serious and intervention-related AEs were not found to be significantly different between TC and inactive or active control conditions. In studies with an AE monitoring protocol, more non-serious adverse events (RD = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.10; P = 0.05) were reported for TC compared to inactive interventions. Given the higher overall AE risks related to studies of participants with heart failure, additional analyses examined this set separately. More serious AEs were found for inactive interventions compared with TC in studies with heart failure participants (RD = −0.11; 95% CI: −0.20, −0.03; P = 0.01). Conclusion: Findings indicate that TC does not result in more AEs than active and inactive control conditions, and produces fewer AEs than inactive control conditions for heart failure patients.

AB - Objectives: To review current publications to examine safety of tai chi (TC). Design: Cochrane Library, EBSCO host and MEDLINE/PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including TC as the core intervention and reporting adverse events (AEs). Data were extracted considering active vs. inactive control group comparisons and presence of an AE monitoring protocol. Meta-analyses were conducted for overall results as well as control group and reporting specific conditions. Results: In 256 RCTs of TC, 24 met eligibility criteria (1794 participants) and were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The frequency of non-serious, serious and intervention-related AEs were not found to be significantly different between TC and inactive or active control conditions. In studies with an AE monitoring protocol, more non-serious adverse events (RD = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.10; P = 0.05) were reported for TC compared to inactive interventions. Given the higher overall AE risks related to studies of participants with heart failure, additional analyses examined this set separately. More serious AEs were found for inactive interventions compared with TC in studies with heart failure participants (RD = −0.11; 95% CI: −0.20, −0.03; P = 0.01). Conclusion: Findings indicate that TC does not result in more AEs than active and inactive control conditions, and produces fewer AEs than inactive control conditions for heart failure patients.

KW - Adverse events

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Review

KW - Safety

KW - Tai chi

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067646957&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067646957&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2019.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2019.06.004

M3 - Review article

VL - 82

SP - 85

EP - 92

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

ER -