What is the evidence for T’ai Chi in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee?
AMSTAR Rating
Summary
Patient Population:
There were a total of 521 individuals enrolled in the studies identified. All studies included participants with knee OA; 3 studies included mixed populations – 6 studies enrolled participants with knee OA only. Reported mean ages ranged from 59.9 – 72.8 years. Duration of OA was reported in only 2 studies (longer than 1 year in one study and from 6 months to 1 year in the other).
Intervention:
Length of T’ai chi programs were not reported.
Comparison:
Comparison conditions included attention controls, waiting list, routine care, and self-help programs. There were 9 RCTs identified for inclusion in the present review. Sample sizes in all trials appeared small – though 5 provided a sample size calculation. All trials were rated as having a low risk of bias in terms of randomization and the reporting of drop-outs or withdrawals. 5 trials reported adequate concealment of allocation and blinding of outcome assessors. Four trials reported ITT analysis. Only 3 studies were assessed as being at a low risk of bias, 2 were at moderate risk.
Outcome:
- Pain: t’ai chi vs. control (6 studies) – significant difference in favour of t’ai chi (SMD=-0.79; 95% CI -1.19 to -039; I2=55%).
- Function: t’ai chi vs. control (6 studies) – significant difference in favour of t’ai chi (SMD=-0.86; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.52; I2=38%).
- Joint Stiffness: t’ai chi vs. control (6 studies) – significant difference in favour of t’ai chi (SMD=-0.53; 95% CI -0.99 to -0.08; I2=67%).
Guideline Recommendations
| Source | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| ACR (2019) | Strongly recommended |
Outcomes Assessed
- Benefit
- Harm
- Inconclusive
T'ai Chi vs. Control
Pain
Function
Joint Stiffness
