MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084157032 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.8061877

Effects of Baduanjin exercise on cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2025· other· en· W7084157032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPercutaneous coronary interventionMaceRehabilitationSubgroup analysisConventional PCICanadian Cardiovascular SocietyEjection fractionMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To systematically evaluate the effects of Baduanjin exercise on cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods From the time the database was constructed to May 28, 2025, Eight databases and two registry systems, including Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM), Clinical Trials, and the China Clinical Trials Registry were searched—clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Baduanjin in treating patients after PCI were retrieved. The primary outcomes were the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Secondary outcomes were Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Anaerobic threshold (AT), Metabolic equivalent of task (METs), and Maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool, version 2.0 (RoB 2). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed using Stata software. In addition, Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Results A total of 56 RCTs involving 5152 patients were included in the study. Compared with the control group, the Baduanjin group showed superior improvement in LVEF (MD = 5.55%, 95% CI [4.28%, 6.82%], P < 0.01, I2 = 94%), 6MWT (MD = 57.68m, 95% CI [40.20m, 75.17m], P < 0.01, I2 = 100%), MACE (RR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.26, 0.42], P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), SAQ-PL (MD = 7.49 points, 95% CI [4.78 points, 10.20 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 91%), SAQ-AS (MD = 12.88 points, 95% CI [10.76 points, 15.00 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 77%), SAQ-DS (MD = 11.30 points, 95% CI [5.14 points, 17.45 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 98%), SAQ-AF (MD = 10.90 points, 95% CI [6.05 points, 15.75 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 98%), SAQ-TS (MD = 8.04 points, 95% CI [2.30 points, 13.78 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 98%), SAS (MD = − 7.01 points, 95% CI [− 8.05 points, − 5.96 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 58%), SDS (MD = − 6.67 points, 95% CI [− 8.34 points, − 5.00 points], P < 0.01, I2 = 89%), VO2peak (MD = 1.81 mL/kg/min, 95% CI [0.82 mL/kg/min, 2.80 mL/kg/min], P < 0.01, I2 = 96%), AT (MD = 1.18 mL/kg/min, 95% CI [0.66 mL/kg/min, 1.69 mL/kg/min], P < 0.01, I2 = 96%), and METs (MD = 0.61 METs, 95% CI [0.32 METs, 0.90 METs], P < 0.01, I2 = 83%) when compared to control groups. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) were more suitable as a target population. Improvement in LVEF was better with intervention duration of 1–3 months, whereas improvement in 6MWT was better with intervention longer than 3 months, and it is not recommended to combine Baduanjin with aerobic exercise. Conclusions Baduanjin can improve cardiopulmonary function, alleviate clinical symptoms, improve quality of life, adjust mental state, and reduce the incidence of MACE in patients after PCI. Systematic review registration CRD42024626379.

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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueFigshareSame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207