ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Mind-body therapies intervention for essential hypertension: network meta-analysis based on the antihypertensive effect.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and may lead to serious health outcomes such as stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and renal failure. Essential hypertension (EH) accounts for approximately 90% of all hypertension cases. In this study, we applied a network meta-analysis (NMA) to quantitatively synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare and rank the effects of mind-body therapies (MBTs) on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with EH, with the aim of providing evidence to support informed selection of MBT interventions. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy restricted to English-language RCTs was developed and applied across multiple biomedical databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP, from database inception to March 2, 2025. (The literature found in the Chinese database did not meet the requirements.) Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed a frequentist network meta-analysis using STATA version 18.0 to compare and rank MBTs with respect to their effects on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Additional analyses were conducted to evaluate network consistency and robustness of the findings. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 949 participants were included, comprising 18 intervention arms and 11 distinct MBT interventions. While most MBTs demonstrated some degree of blood pressure-lowering effect, SUCRA values indicated that Bhramari Pranayama (BP; SUCRA = 75.3%) and Specific Qigong (SQ; SUCRA = 73.7%) had the highest probabilities of ranking among the more effective interventions for reducing SBP. For DBP reduction, Sound Relax Meditation (SRM; SUCRA = 83.0%), Specific Qigong (SQ; SUCRA = 80.2%), and Bhramari Pranayama (BP; SUCRA = 78.1%) showed relatively favorable rankings. These rankings represent relative probabilities and should be interpreted in conjunction with effect sizes and the overall certainty of evidence. Conclusion: Compared with other MBTs, Bhramari Pranayama and Specific Qigong demonstrated more favorable relative effects on systolic blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension. Sound Relax Meditation, Specific Qigong, and Bhramari Pranayama showed comparatively better performance in reducing diastolic blood pressure. Given the limited number of studies and modest sample sizes, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these comparative effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.