SynthesisAge and ageing2026
Efficacy of traditional Chinese exercises on cognitive function in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCognitive impairment is a significant health concern among older adults, highlighting the need for non-pharmacological interventions, such as mind-body exercises. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of various traditional Chinese exercises (TCEs) on cognitive function in older adults is lacking.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Six databases were searched from inception to 2 May 2024 for studies examining the effects of TCEs on cognitive outcomes in adults aged 60 years and older. Studies were included if they were RCTs involving TCEs and reported outcome measures for global cognition, or individual cognitive domains.
resultsTwenty-eight RCTs with a total of 2297 participants were included. Meta-analysis revealed that TCEs led to significant improvements in global cognition: Montreal Cognitive Assessment [mean differences (MD) = 1.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): (1.20, 2.14)], Mini-Mental State Examination [MD = 0.76; 95% CI: (0.04, 1.48)]; executive function: Trail Making Test (B-A) [MD = -7.96; 95% CI: (-15.34, -0.59)], Category Fluency for Animals [MD = 2.96, 95% CI (2.08, 3.85)]; working memory: Digit Span-Backwards [MD = 0.48; 95% CI: (0.07, 0.90)]; processing speed: Digit Symbol Coding [MD = 4.16; 95% CI: (1.82, 6.50)]; memory function: Memory Quotient [MD = 13.13; 95% CI: (4.06, 22.20)], Auditory Verbal Learning Test: immediate recall [MD = 1.13; 95% CI: (0.07, 2.20)], short-term delayed recognition [MD = 0.80; 95% CI: (0.28, 1.32)] and long-term delayed recognition [MD = 1.38; 95% CI: (0.68, 2.09)].
conclusionsTCEs are effective in improving cognitive function in older adults, particularly in domains such as global cognition, executive function, working memory, processing speed and memory function. However, given the methodological limitations and heterogeneity of the included studies, these findings require confirmation in further large-scale, high-quality RCTs.
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.