Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Effects of traditional mind–body movement therapy on chronic cardiopulmonary dyspnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Tiange Zhang1,
  2. Rui Zhou2,
  3. Ting Wang1,
  4. Yijun Xin1,
  5. Xiaohong Liu3,
  6. Huiting Huang3
  1. 1The First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
  2. 2The Second Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
  3. 3The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Huiting Huang, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China; 348619123{at}qq.com; Professor Xiaohong Liu; drlxh{at}foxmail.com

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate whether traditional mind–body movement therapy (TMBM) can be used as a complementary or alternative therapy for exercise-based cardiopulmonary rehabilitation (EBCR) on chronic cardiopulmonary dyspnoea.

Methods PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched from their inception to 2 July 2021. Randomised clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of TMBM versus EBCR, and TMBM +EBCR versus TMBM in the treatment of chronic cardiopulmonary dyspnoea were selected. The outcomes were exercise capacity (6 min walk distance, 6MWD) and quality of life (QoL).

Results Thirty-four randomised clinical trials with 2456 patients were included. For TMBM vs EBCR alone, statistically significant improvements in the 6MWD favoured the TMBM for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (mean difference(MD)=12.22 m; 95% CI 5.94 to 18.50; I2=56%) and heart failure (HF) patients (MD=43.65 m; 95% CI 7.91 to 79.38; I2=0%). Statistically significant improvements in QoL also favoured TMBM over EBCR for patients with HF(MD=−9.19; 95% CI −11.05 to −7.32; I2=0%) but non-significant trend for COPD (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.31; 95% CI −0.62 to 0.01; I2=78%). Comparisons of TMBM +EBCR versus EBCR alone revealed significant improvements in the QoL for COPD (SMD=−0.52; 95% CI −0.94 to −0.10; I2=86%) and patients with HF (MD=−2.82; 95% CI −4.99 to −0.64; I2=0%). The 6MWD results favoured the TMBM +EBCR for patients with COPD (MD=16.76 m; 95% CI 10.24 to 23.29; I2=0%), but only showed a slight trend towards additional benefits of TMBM +EBCR in the HF studies (MD=13.77 m; 95% CI −1.01 to 28.54; I2=65%) .

Conclusions TMBM has positive effects on patients’ 6MWD and QoL, with similar or even better effects than EBCR. It may be beneficial to use TMBM as a supplementary or alternative strategy for EBCR in treatment plans.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021241181.

  • Complementary Medicine
  • Exercise
  • Systemic disease and lungs
  • Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Not applicable.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Not applicable.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • TZ, RZ and TW are joint first authors.

  • TZ, RZ and TW contributed equally.

  • Contributors Concept and design: HH, TZ, RZ and TW. Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data: TZ, TW and YX. Drafting of the manuscript: TZ and RZ. Critical revision of the manuscript: All authors. Statistical analysis: TZ, RZ and TW. Obtained funding: XL. Administrative, technical or material support: XL and HH. Supervision: XL and HH. Guarantor: HH

  • Funding This work was supported by grants from the Key Projects of Double First-Class and High-level University Subject Collaborative Innovation Team of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Project No. 2021XK16); The Construction Project of the National Clinical Medical Research Center (Project No. 2110200309) and the Innovative Training Program for College Students of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Project No. S202110572064).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.