MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415604555 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1661674

The optimal course and frequency of Tai Chi for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2025· review· en· W4415604555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jing Deng, Leyi Zhang, Fengjiao Chen, Yufeng Tao, Hao Yang, Lanlan Yu, Chi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEOsteoarthritisCourse (navigation)Alternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a highly prevalent degenerative joint disease worldwide and an important cause of disability. Currently, medication and surgical interventions are commonly used in clinical practice, but there are limitations such as significant side effects and high medical costs. Tai Chi, as a non-pharmacologic intervention, is recommended for its safety and few adverse effects. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the optimal course and frequency of Tai Chi intervention, and there is an urgent need to optimize clinical intervention protocols. In order to scientifically assess the optimal course and frequency of Tai Chi for the treatment of KOA, this study integrates the existing evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis, and aims to provide standardized protocols for Tai Chi training in clinical practice. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP database were searched from establishment to August 30, 2025. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the literature and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC physical function, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS), and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS). For combined outcomes, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Review Manager 5.4.1, Stata 15.0 and GRADE profiler software were used to statistically analyze and plot the included information. Results: < 0.01). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that Tai Chi is effective in improving pain, stiffness, physical function, and physical health in patients with KOA. Patients with KOA should consider their specific conditions and choose a Tai Chi training protocol that suits their needs. The preliminary results of this meta-analysis indicate that for patients with pain and physical functional limitations, a long-term (>16 weeks)/three times weekly Tai Chi training regimen may be selected; for patients experiencing knee stiffness, a short-term (≤16 weeks)/three times weekly Tai Chi training regimen may be considered; and for KOA patients seeking to improve physical health through Tai Chi training, a short-term (≤16 weeks)/twice weekly Tai Chi training regimen may be selected. However, the number of large-sample studies in this review is limited, and more studies are urgently needed to confirm these results. Systematic review registration: Identifier-CRD42024599921, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0310.040
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207