Are Tai Chi and Qigong effective in the treatment of traumatic brain injury? A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) adversely affects both young and old and is a growing public health concern. The common functional, psychological, and cognitive changes associated with TBI and recent trends in its management, such as recommending sub-threshold aerobic activity, and multi-modal treatment strategies including vestibular rehabilitation, suggest that Tai Chi/Qigong could be beneficial for TBI. Tai Chi and Qigong are aerobic mind-body practices with known benefits for maintaining health and mitigating chronic disease. To date, no systematic review has been published assessing the safety and effectiveness of Tai Chi/Qigong for traumatic injury. METHODS: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. All people with mild, moderate, or severe TBI who were inpatients or outpatients were included. All Types of Tai Chi and Qigong, and all comparators, were included. All measured outcomes were included. A priori, we chose "return to usual activities" as the primary outcome measure as it was patient-oriented. Cochrane-based risk of bias assessments were conducted on all included trials. Quality of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: Five trials were assessed; three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two non-RCTs; only two trials were conducted in the last 5 years. No trial measured "return to normal activities" or vestibular status as an outcome. Four trials - two RCTs and two non-RCTS - all found Tai Chi improved functional, psychological and/or cognitive outcomes. One RCT had a low risk of bias and a high level of certainty; one had some concerns. One non-RCTs had a moderate risk of bias and the other a serious risk of bias. The one Qigong RCT found improved psychological outcomes. It had a low risk of bias and a moderate level of certainty. Only one trial reported on adverse events and found that none were experienced by either the exercise or control group. CONCLUSION: Based on the consistent finding of benefit in the four Tai Chi trials, including one RCT that had a high level of certainty, there is a sufficient signal to merit conducting a large, high quality multi-centre trial on Tai Chi for TBI and test it against current trends in TBI management. Based on the one RCT on TBI and Qigong, an additional confirmatory RCT is indicated. Further research is indicated that reflects current management strategies and includes adverse event documentation in both the intervention and control groups. However, these findings suggest that, in addition to Tai Chi's known health promotion and chronic disease mitigation benefits, its use for the treatment of injury, such as TBI, is potentially a new frontier. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO [ CRD42022364385 ].
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».