ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of Tai Chi on patients with heart failure.MethodsDatabases including CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, Web of Science, PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library (Issue 8, 2016) were searched from inception to August, 2016 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Tai Chi for heart failure patients. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 689 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, the heart failure patients in Tai Chi group had better score of minnesotaliving with heart failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) (MD=–9.37, 95%CI –13.09 to –5.65, P<0.000 01), longer six minute walk test (6MWT) (MD=40.37, 95%CI 9.48 to 71.27, P=0.01), higher left ventricular ejectionfractions (LVEF) (MD=7.89, 95%CI 3.01 to 12.77, P=0.002) and lower level of BNP (brain natriuretic peptide) (MD=–10.75, 95%CI –13.20 to –8.30, P<0.000 01); however, as to the maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) (MD=0.29, 95%CI –1.223 to 1.81, P=0.71), systolic pressure (SBP) (MD=–2.81, 95%CI –8.52 to 2.90, P=0.33) and diastolic pressure (DBP) (MD=0.37, 95%CI –3.73 to 4.48, P=0.86), there were no significant differences between both groups.ConclusionThe current evidence shows that Tai Chi is feasible for patients with heart failure as it has positive effects on life quality, physiological functions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above conclusion should be validated by more high quality studies.
ObjectiveTo re-evaluate the systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MAs) of the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement. MethodsThe CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect SR/MAs of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement from inception to April 28, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then assessed the quality of reports, methodological quality, risk of bias, and the strength of evidence quality by using PRISMA, AMSTAR-Ⅱ, ROBIS, and GRADE tool. ResultsA total of 20 SR/MAs were included. The results of the included studies showed that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement was more accurate and had a lower number of complications compared with freehand pedicle screw placement. The quality of reports, methodology, and evidence for pedicle screw placement efficiency in all SR/MAs were low or extremely low, with a high risk of bias. The main reasons included high heterogeneity of included studies, unclear research methods and selection criteria, and missing key reporting processes. ConclusionRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement may have better clinical efficiency than traditional freehand pedicle screw placement. But the quality of relational SR/MAs is low.