Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of findings: Tai Chi compared to aerobic exercise for psychological well-being and QoL in people with CVD and risk factors

From: Does tai chi improve psychological well-being and quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease and/or cardiovascular risk factors? A systematic review

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

№ of participants (studies)

Certainty of the evidence GRADE)

Risk with Aerobic exercise

Risk with Tai Chi

Safety

150 per 1000

182 per 1000 (47 to 715)

RR 1.21 (0.31 to 4.77)

42 (1 RCT)

VERY LOW a, b

Stress assessed with: PSS-10

The mean stress was 10.28 scores

MD 2.09 scores lower (4.22 lower to 0.04 higher)

132 (1 RCT)

LOW c

Depression assessed with: SDS & POMS

SMD 0.1 SD lower (0.62 lower to 0.43 higher)

56 (2 RCTs)

VERY LOW a, b

Quality of life measured by MLHF

The mean quality of life measured by MLHF was 25.6 - 28.7 scores

MD 1.55 scores higher (8.5 lower to 11.59 higher)

58 (2 RCTs)

VERY LOW a, b

  1. *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  2. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio, MD Mean difference, SMD Standardised mean difference
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  5. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  6. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  7. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  8. Explanations:
  9. aModerate risk of bias (RoB), and no sensitivity analysis of only low RoB studies was conducted or if conducted, the effect estimates were unstable
  10. bOptimal information size (OIS) is not met, 95% CI overlaps no effect, and both important benefit and harm included (i.e., very wide CI)
  11. cOIS is not met, 95%CI overlaps no effect but fails to include both important benefit and harm