Evidence mapPaperPMID 38874898Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Effects of Traditional Chinese Exercises on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Chenyang Dong, Ruoya Liu, Ran Li, Zhiyang Huang, Shiyuan Sun

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Chenyang DongSchool of Sport Science, Beijing Sport University, 48 Xinxi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China.
Ruoya LiuSchool of Sport Science, Beijing Sport University, 48 Xinxi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China.
Ran LiSchool of Sport Science, Beijing Sport University, 48 Xinxi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China. liranemail@bsu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-7202-9767
Zhiyang HuangSchool of Sport Science, Beijing Sport University, 48 Xinxi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China.
Shiyuan SunSchool of Sport Science, Beijing Sport University, 48 Xinxi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China No. 2018YFC2000604National Key Research and Development Program of China No.2020YFC2006703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, most studies on the health benefits of traditional Chinese exercises on type 2 diabetes mellitus have explored the effects of a single type of traditional Chinese exercise on type 2 diabetes. Although a previous study evaluated the combined clinical effects of traditional Chinese exercises on type 2 diabetes, the studies included in that review were deficient in their study design. In addition, previous studies have not explored the ideal exercise dose that should be taken by patients with type 2 diabetes when performing traditional Chinese exercises.

objectiveTo understand whether the findings of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses are still applicable and to try to address the deficiencies in the previous review, this review conducted a meta-analysis of existing randomized controlled trials to investigate the impact of traditional Chinese exercises on glycemic control with type 2 diabetes.

methodsThe literature was searched in seven Chinese and English databases. Randomized controlled trials published in English and Chinese, from database inception to March 2023, were included in this review. Two reviewers independently reviewed the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A meta-analysis of the included studies was conducted using Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 15.1 software. Heterogeneity was investigated using a sensitivity analysis, a subgroup analysis, and a meta-regression analysis. Pre-determined subgroups included the duration of the intervention, frequency of exercise, and duration of the single exercise session.

resultsA total of 31 randomized controlled trials (2077 subjects) were selected in this review. The meta-analysis revealed that traditional Chinese exercises were more effective than control groups in lowering glycated hemoglobin (Z = 6.06; mean difference [MD] =  - 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.85, - 0.44; P < 0.00001), fasting blood glucose (Z = 7.81; MD =  - 0.82, 95% CI - 1.03, - 0.62; P < 0.00001), 2-h plasma glucose (Z = 5.61; MD =  - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.39, - 0.67; P < 0.00001), total cholesterol (Z = 4.23; MD =  - 0.37, 95% CI - 0.54, - 0.20; P < 0.0001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Z = 5.94; MD = 0.12, 95% CI 0.08, 0.16; P < 0.00001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Z = 6.20; MD =  - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.44, - 0.23; P < 0.00001), and triglyceride levels (Z = 3.74; MD =  - 0.44, 95% CI - 0.67, - 0.21; P = 0.0002) among patients with type 2 diabetes.

conclusionsTraditional Chinese exercises can significantly improve blood glucose and lipid levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. When performing traditional Chinese exercise interventions for type 2 diabetes, it is recommended that exercise programs are designed for 30-50 min/session, 4-5 sessions/week for at least 3 months.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Exercise TherapyGlycemic ControlBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.