BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory, autoimmune disease that results in joint deformity and immobility of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. This is an update of a review published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries from 2002 to September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits (ACR improvement criteria or pain, disease progression, function, and radiographic progression), and harms (adverse events and withdrawals) of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy. We included studies of any duration that included control groups who received either no therapy or alternate therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: Adding three studies (156 additional participants) to the original review, this update contains a total of seven trials with 345 participants. Participants were mostly women with RA, ranging in age from 16 to 80 years, who were treated in outpatient settings in China, South Korea, and the USA. The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, due to the lack of blinding of participants or assessors. Almost 75% of the studies did not report random sequence generation, and we judged the risk of bias as unclear for allocation concealment in the majority of studies. The duration of the Tai Chi programs ranged from 8 to 12 weeks.It is uncertain whether Tai Chi-based exercise programs provide a clinically important improvement in pain among Tai Chi participants compared to no therapy or alternate therapy. The change in mean pain in control groups, measured on visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 10 score, reduced score means less pain) ranged from a decrease of 0.51 to an increase of 1.6 at 12 weeks; in the Tai Chi groups, pain was reduced by a mean difference (MD) of -2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.19 to -1.11); 22% absolute improvement (95% CI, 11% to 32% improvement); 2 studies, 81 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding and attrition bias.There was very low-quality evidence, downgraded for, blinding, and attrition, that was inconclusive for an important difference in disease activity, measured using Disease Activity Scale (DAS-28-ESR) scores (0 to 10 scale, lower score means less disease activity), with no change in the control group and 0.40 reduction (95% CI -1.10 to 0.30) with Tai Chi; 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 3% worsening); 1 study, 43 participants.For the assessment of function, the change in mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; 0 to 3 scale, lower score means better function) ranged from 0 to 0.1 in the control group, and reduced by MD 0.33 in the Tai Chi group (95% CI -0.79 to 0.12); 11% absolute improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worsening); 2 studies, 63 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding, and attrition. We are unsure of an important improvement, as the results were inconclusive.Participants in Tai Chi programs were less likely than those in a control group to withdraw from studies at 8 to 12 weeks (19/180 in intervention groups versus 49/165 in control groups; risk ratio (RR) 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.86); absolute difference 17% fewer (95% CI 30% fewer to 3% fewer); 7 studies, 289 participants; low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and blinding.There were no data available for radiographic progression. Short-term adverse events were not reported by group, but in two studies there was some narrative description of joint and muscle soreness and cramps; long-term adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether Tai Chi has any effect on clinical outcomes (joint pain, activity limitation, function) in RA, and important effects cannot be confirmed or excluded, since all outcomes had very low-quality evidence. Withdrawals from study were greater in the control groups than the Tai Chi groups, based on low-quality evidence. Although the incidence of adverse events is likely to be low with Tai Chi, we are uncertain, as studies failed to explicitly report such events. Few minor adverse events (joint and muscle soreness and cramps) were described qualitatively in the narrative of two of the studies. This updated review provides minimal change in the conclusions from the previous review, i.e. a pain outcome.
BACKGROUND: No cure for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known at present, so treatment often focuses on management of symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility. Treatment options include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. Balneotherapy is defined as bathing in natural mineral or thermal waters (e.g. mineral baths, sulphur baths, Dead Sea baths), using mudpacks or doing both. Despite its popularity, reported scientific evidence for the effectiveness or efficacy of balneotherapy is sparse. This review, which evaluates the effects of balneotherapy in patients with RA, is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2008.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review on the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA in terms of pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field Register (to December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLIINE (1950 to December 2014), EMBASE (1988 to December 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to December 2014), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1985 to December 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to December 2014) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We applied no language restrictions; however, studies not reported in English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German or French are awaiting assessment. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and recently completed trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA as defined by the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria of 1958, the ARA/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1988 or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria of 2010, or by studies using the criteria of Steinbrocker.Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention.The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) determined in 1992 a core set of eight endpoints in clinical trials concerning patients with RA. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus and, if necessary, by third party adjudication.
MAIN RESULTS: This review includes two new studies and a total of nine studies involving 579 participants. Unfortunately, most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Four out of nine studies did not contribute to the analysis, as they presented no data.One study involving 45 participants with hand RA compared mudpacks versus placebo. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of pain on a 0 to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 1.84), improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.70) or number of swollen joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.10) (very low level of evidence). We found a very low level of evidence of reduction in the number of tender joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD -4.60, 95% CI -8.72 to -0.48; 16% absolute difference). We reported no physical disability and presented no data on withdrawals due to adverse events or on serious adverse events.Two studies involving 194 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths. We found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in terms of pain frequency (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 31% reduction; improvement in one or more points (categories) on a 4-point scale; moderate level of evidence) and 9.6% reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.6 mm, 95% CI 1.6 to 17.6; moderate level of evidence). We also observed some benefit in one study including 60 participants in terms of improvement in one or more categories based on a 4-point scale (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7; 30% absolute difference; low level of evidence). Study authors did not report physical disability, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events.One study involving 148 participants with RA compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain on the McGill Questionnaire or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between balneotherapy and the other interventions. No data on improvement, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were presented.One study involving 57 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of mineral baths (balneotherapy) versus Cyclosporin A. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 20.94; low level of evidence) at 8 weeks (absolute difference 10%). We found some benefit of balneotherapy in overall improvement on a 5-point scale at eight weeks of 54% (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83). We found no statistically significant differences (low level of evidence) in the number of swollen joints, but some benefit of Cyclosporin A in the number of tender joints (MD 8.9, 95% CI 3.8 to 14; very low level of evidence). Physical disability, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment, that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than mudpacks, exercise or relaxation therapy.
BACKGROUND: Herbal medicine interventions have been identified as having potential benefit in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVES: To update an existing systematic (Cochrane) review of herbal therapies in RA.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dissertation Abstracts (1996 to 2009), unrestricted by language, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in October 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of herbal interventions compared with placebo or active controls in RA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS: Twelve new studies were added to the update, a total of 22 studies were included.Evidence from seven studies indicate potential benefits of gamma linolenic acid (GLA) from evening primrose oil, borage seed oil, or blackcurrent seed oil, in terms of reduced pain intensity (mean difference (MD) -32.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -56.25 to -9.42,100 point pain scale); improved disability (MD -15.75% 95% CI -27.06 to -4.44%); and an increase in adverse events (GLA 20% versus placebo 3%), that was not statistically different (relative risk 4.24, 95% CI 0.78 to 22.99).Three studies compared Tripterygium wilfordii (thunder god vine) to placebo and one to sulfasalazine and indicated improvements in some outcomes, but data could not be pooled due to differing interventions, comparisons and outcomes. One study reported serious side effects with oral Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F. In the follow-up studies, all side effects were mild to moderate and resolved after the intervention ceased. Two studies compared Phytodolor(®) N to placebo but poor reporting limited data extraction. The remaining studies each considered differing herbal interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Several herbal interventions are inadequately justified by single studies or non-comparable studies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. There is moderate evidence that oils containing GLA (evening primrose, borage, or blackcurrant seed oil) afford some benefit in relieving symptoms for RA, while evidence for Phytodolor® N is less convincing.Tripterygium wilfordii products may reduce some RA symptoms, however, oral use may be associated with several side effects. Many trials of herbal therapies are hampered by research design flaws and inadequate reporting. Further investigation of each herbal therapy is warranted, particularly via well designed, fully powered, confirmatory clinical trials that use American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria to measure outcomes and report results according to CONSORT guidelines.
Foot orthoses are commonly prescribed by health professionals as a form of intervention for the symptomatic foot in rheumatoid arthritis. However, there is a limited evidence base to support the use of foot orthoses in this patient group. This article provides a critical review of the use of foot orthoses in the management of rheumatoid arthritic foot pathologies. A search was conducted in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (current issue of the Cochrane Library), Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro), Medline, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and from reference lists in journal articles. The language was restricted to English. Searching of the databases was undertaken between December 2004 and March 2005. The results indicated there is no consensus of opinion on the choice of foot orthoses used for the management of pathology in the rheumatoid foot, although there is strong evidence that foot orthoses do reduce pain and improve functional ability. The type of foot orthoses used ranged from simple cushioned insoles to custom-made rigid cast devices. Methodological issues raised included small sample size and poor use of valid and reliable outcome measures. There is limited evidence pertaining to cost-effectiveness. The results indicated a need for further investigation into the most clinically and cost-effective foot orthoses to prescribe in the management of the rheumatoid arthritic foot. This review highlights the need to identify the various types of foot orthoses that are most effective in the management of the established rheumatoid arthritic foot.
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been used by rehabilitation specialists as an adjunct therapy for the symptomatic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medicine where thin needles are inserted in specific documented points believed to represent concentration of body energies. In some cases a small electrical impulse is added to the needles. Once the needles are inserted in some of the appropriate points, endorphins, morphine-like substances, have been shown to be released in the patient's system, thus inducing local or generalised analgesia (pain relief). This review is an update of the original review published in July 2002. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of acupuncture or electroacupuncture on the objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, Current Contents , Sports Discus and CINAHL, initially done in September 2001, was updated in May 2005.The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registries. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved papers and content experts were contacted to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in patients with RA were eligible. Trials published in languages other than French and English were not analyzed. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search and extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all the extracted data. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a five point validated tool that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: After the updated searches were conducted, five further potential articles were identified; however, these did not meet the inclusion criteria. Two studies involving a total of 84 people were included. One study used acupuncture while the other used electroacupuncture. In the acupuncture study, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analogue scale for patient's global assessment (VAS G), number of swollen joints and tender joints, general health questionnaire (GHQ), modified disease activity scale (DAS) or for the decrease in analgesic intake. Although not statistically significant, pain in the treatment group improved by 4 points on a 0-100mm visual analogue scale versus no improvement in the placebo group. In the second study, using electroacupuncture, a significant decrease in knee pain was reported in the experimental group, 24 hours post treatment, when compared to the placebo group (WMD -2.0 with 95% CI -3.6,-4.0). A significant decrease was found also at four months post-treatment (WMD -0.2, 95% CI: -0.36, -0.04). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of the study on electroacupuncture show that electroacupuncture may be beneficial to reduce symptomatic knee pain in patients with RA 24 hours and 4 months post treatment, the reviewers concluded that the poor quality of the trial, including the small sample size preclude its recommendation. The reviewers further conclude that acupuncture has no effect on ESR, CRP, pain, patient's global assessment, number of swollen joints, number of tender joints, general health, disease activity and reduction of analgesics. These conclusions are limited by methodological considerations such as the type of acupuncture (acupuncture vs electroacupuncture), the site of intervention, the low number of clinical trials and the small sample size of the included studies.
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for RA about ten years ago. LLLT is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. The effectiveness of LLLT for rheumatoid arthritis is still controversial. This review is an update of the original review published in October 1998. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA. Search methods: We initially searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (from 1998), the registries of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group and the field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 2001. This search has now been updated to include articles published up to June 2005. Selection criteria: Following an a priori protocol, only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, then extracted data and assessed quality using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested using chi-squared. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with relative risks. Main results: A total of 222 patients were included in the five placebo-controlled trials, with 130 randomized to laser therapy. Relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 1.10 points (95% CI: 1.82, 0.39) on visual analogue scale relative to placebo, reduced morning stiffness duration by 27.5 minutes (95%CI: 2.9 to 52 minutes) and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI: 0.8 to 1.7). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion and local swelling did not differ between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application or treatment length. For RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference observed between the control and treatment hand for morning stiffness duration, and also no significant improvement in pain relief RR 13.00 (95% CI: 0.79 to 214.06). However, only one study was included as using the contralateral limb as control. Authors' conclusions: LLLT could be considered for short-term treatment for relief of pain and morning stiffness for RA patients, particularly since it has few side-effects. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for RA in randomized controlled clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Computerized literature searches for all RCTs of Ayurvedic medicine for RA in the following databases: Medline (March 1969 to March 2003), Embase (February 1985 to February 2003), AMED (March 1980 to March 2003), Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (October 1997 to March 2003), and the abstract service of Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS; 1976 to March 2003). Hand searches were performed in 1 Sri Lankan and 3 Indian journals and the authors' personal files. Key data of included studies were extracted and reviewed. The methodological quality of all studies was evaluated with the Jadad scale. RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Trials tested either Ayurvedic medicine against placebo or other Ayurvedic medicines. In general, patient and physician global assessments on the severity of pain, and morning stiffness were used as endpoints. Of 3 placebo-controlled RCTs, 1 high-quality trial did not show benefit of the active treatment against placebo, while another incompletely reported study indicated beneficial effects of an Ayurvedic medicine. A further incompletely reported study showed no significant difference. The remaining 4 trials were difficult to interpret because they tested an Ayurvedic medicine against other Ayurvedic medicines whose effects were not proven. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of RCTs of Ayurvedic medicines for RA. The existing RCTs fail to show convincingly that such treatments are effective therapeutic options for RA.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review educational or psychoeducational interventions for patients with rheumatoid arthritis focusing on long-term effects, especially health status. METHODS: Two independent reviewers appraised the methodologic quality of the included randomized controlled trials, published between 1980 and July 2002. RESULTS: Validity scores of studies ranged from 3 to 9 (of 11). The 7 educational programs mainly improved knowledge and compliance in the short and long term, but there was no improvement in health status. All 4 psychoeducational programs improved coping behavior in the short term, 2 of them showing a positive long-term effect on physical or psychological health variables. CONCLUSION: Methodologically better-designed studies had more difficulties demonstrating positive outcome results. Short-term effects in program targets are generally observed, whereas long-term changes in health status are not convincingly demonstrated. There is a need to find better strategies to enhance the transfer of short-term effects into gains in health status.
A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of hand exercises for persons with rheumatoid arthritis. The databases Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PEDro, and Cochrane were used to search for articles on exercise and hand and rheumatoid arthritis (and their synonyms). Any articles that evaluated the effects of exercise on the hand were included in the review and evaluated for quality on a form specifically developed for the reviews in this issue. Only nine studies evaluated the effect of hand exercise or a program that included hand exercise. Quality scores ranged from 21 to 39 out of a possible 48. Few studies used psychometrically sound measures or reported on changes to everyday function. Although some significant results were obtained, they may have been due to multiple outcome measures, lack of blinding, and within-group rather than between-group comparisons. Impairment and dexterity were frequent outcomes, but measurement of self-report function was lacking. Long-term exercise may increase strength, but results on range of motion are inconsistent across studies, subjects, and joints. There is a need for randomized controlled trials with goal-specific exercise, measurement of outcomes appropriate to the goals, adequate sample size, and comparison with an appropriate control condition.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory, autoimmune disease that results in joint deformity and immobility of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. This is an update of a review published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the benefits and harms of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
SEARCH METHODS:
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries from 2002 to September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We selected randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits (ACR improvement criteria or pain, disease progression, function, and radiographic progression), and harms (adverse events and withdrawals) of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy. We included studies of any duration that included control groups who received either no therapy or alternate therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS:
Adding three studies (156 additional participants) to the original review, this update contains a total of seven trials with 345 participants. Participants were mostly women with RA, ranging in age from 16 to 80 years, who were treated in outpatient settings in China, South Korea, and the USA. The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, due to the lack of blinding of participants or assessors. Almost 75% of the studies did not report random sequence generation, and we judged the risk of bias as unclear for allocation concealment in the majority of studies. The duration of the Tai Chi programs ranged from 8 to 12 weeks.It is uncertain whether Tai Chi-based exercise programs provide a clinically important improvement in pain among Tai Chi participants compared to no therapy or alternate therapy. The change in mean pain in control groups, measured on visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 10 score, reduced score means less pain) ranged from a decrease of 0.51 to an increase of 1.6 at 12 weeks; in the Tai Chi groups, pain was reduced by a mean difference (MD) of -2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.19 to -1.11); 22% absolute improvement (95% CI, 11% to 32% improvement); 2 studies, 81 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding and attrition bias.There was very low-quality evidence, downgraded for, blinding, and attrition, that was inconclusive for an important difference in disease activity, measured using Disease Activity Scale (DAS-28-ESR) scores (0 to 10 scale, lower score means less disease activity), with no change in the control group and 0.40 reduction (95% CI -1.10 to 0.30) with Tai Chi; 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 3% worsening); 1 study, 43 participants.For the assessment of function, the change in mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; 0 to 3 scale, lower score means better function) ranged from 0 to 0.1 in the control group, and reduced by MD 0.33 in the Tai Chi group (95% CI -0.79 to 0.12); 11% absolute improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worsening); 2 studies, 63 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding, and attrition. We are unsure of an important improvement, as the results were inconclusive.Participants in Tai Chi programs were less likely than those in a control group to withdraw from studies at 8 to 12 weeks (19/180 in intervention groups versus 49/165 in control groups; risk ratio (RR) 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.86); absolute difference 17% fewer (95% CI 30% fewer to 3% fewer); 7 studies, 289 participants; low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and blinding.There were no data available for radiographic progression. Short-term adverse events were not reported by group, but in two studies there was some narrative description of joint and muscle soreness and cramps; long-term adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
It is uncertain whether Tai Chi has any effect on clinical outcomes (joint pain, activity limitation, function) in RA, and important effects cannot be confirmed or excluded, since all outcomes had very low-quality evidence. Withdrawals from study were greater in the control groups than the Tai Chi groups, based on low-quality evidence. Although the incidence of adverse events is likely to be low with Tai Chi, we are uncertain, as studies failed to explicitly report such events. Few minor adverse events (joint and muscle soreness and cramps) were described qualitatively in the narrative of two of the studies. This updated review provides minimal change in the conclusions from the previous review, i.e. a pain outcome.
