Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of Qigong in reducing the self-rating depression scale (SDS) and self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: We searched CNKI, Wan fang, Chongqing VIP, China Biology Medicine disc, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for studies published as of Dec 31, 2018. All randomized controlled trials of Qigong in COPD patients, which met the inclusion criteria were included. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used for literature evaluation. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: Six studies (combined n = 415 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with conventional therapy alone, Qigong in combination with conventional therapy significantly improved the following outcome measures: SDS score [mean difference (MD) −3.99, 95% CI (−6.17, −1.82), P < .001, I 2 = 69%]; SAS score[MD −4.57, 95% CI (−5.67, −3.48), P < .001, I 2 = 15%]; forced expiratory volume in one second/prediction (FEV 1 % pred) [MD 3.77, 95% CI (0.97,6.58), P < .01, I 2 = 0]; forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 ) [MD 0.21, 95% CI (0.13, 0.30), P < .001, I 2 = 0%]; forced vital capacity (FVC) [MD 0.28, 95% CI (0.16, 0.40), P < .001, I 2 = 0]; 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance [MD 39.31, 95% CI (18.27, 60.34), P < .001, I 2 = 32%]; and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score [MD −11.42, 95% CI (−21.80, −1.03), P < .05, I 2 = 72%]. Conclusion: Qigong can improve the SDS and SAS scores of COPD patients, and has auxiliary effects on improving lung function, 6MWT distance, and SGRQ score.
To investigate the difference of clinical characteristics between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with the frequent exacerbators with chronic bronchitis (FE-CB) phenotype and those with the asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACO) phenotype. We searched CNKI, Wan Fang, Chongqing VIP, China Biology Medicine disc, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for studies published as of April 30, 2019. All studies that investigated COPD patients with the FE-CB and ACO phenotypes and which qualified the inclusion criteria were included. Cross-sectional/prevalence study quality recommendations were used to measure methodological quality. RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Ten studies (combined n = 4568) qualified the inclusion criteria. The FE-CB phenotype of COPD was associated with significantly lower forced vital capacity percent predicted (mean difference [MD] −9.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−12.00, −6.10], P < .001, I 2 = 66%), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (MD −407.18, 95% CI [−438.63, −375.72], P < .001, I 2 = 33%), forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted (MD −9.71, 95% CI [−12.79, −6.63], P < .001, I 2 = 87%), FEV1/forced vital capacity (MD −5.4, 95% CI [−6.49, −4.30], P < .001, I 2 = 0%), and body mass index (BMI) (MD −0.81, 95% CI [−1.18, −0.45], P < .001, I 2 = 44%) as compared to the ACO phenotype. However, FE-CB phenotype was associated with higher quantity of cigarettes smoked (pack-years) (MD 6.45, 95% CI [1.82, 11.09], P < .001, I 2 = 73%), COPD assessment test score (CAT) (MD 4.04, 95% CI [3.46, 4.61], P < .001, I 2 = 0%), mMRC score (MD 0.54, 95% CI [0.46, 0.62], P < .001, I 2 = 34%), exacerbations in previous year (1.34, 95% CI [0.98, 1.71], P < .001, I 2 = 68%), and BMI, obstruction, dyspnea, exacerbations (BODEx) (MD 1.59, 95% CI [1.00, 2.18], P < .001, I 2 = 86%) as compared to the ACO phenotype. Compared with the ACO phenotype, COPD patients with the FE-CB phenotype had poorer pulmonary function, lower BMI, and higher CAT score, quantity of cigarettes smoked (pack-years), exacerbations in previous year, mMRC score, and BODEx. This study is an analysis of published literature, which belongs to the second study. Therefore, this study does not require the approval of the ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication or conference presentation.
When the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) program was initiated in 1998, a goal was to produce recommendations for management of COPD based on the best scientific information available. The first report, Global Strategy for Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD was issued in 2001. In 2006 and again in 2011 a complete revision was prepared based on published research. These reports, and their companion documents, have been widely distributed and translated into many languages and can be found on the GOLD website (www.goldcopd.org). The GOLD Science Committee ‡ was established in 2002 to review published research on COPD management and prevention, to evaluate the impact of this research on recommendations in the GOLD documents related to management and prevention, and to post yearly updates on the GOLD website. Its members are recognized leaders in COPD research and clinical practice with the scientific credentials to contribute to the task of the Committee and are invited to serve in a voluntary capacity.
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with different phenotypes show different clinical characteristics. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the clinical characteristics between the non-exacerbator (NE) phenotype and the frequent exacerbator with chronic bronchitis (FE-CB) phenotype among patients with COPD. Methods: CNKI, Wan fang, Chongqing VIP, China Biology Medicine disc, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched from the times of their inception to April 30, 2019. All studies that reported the clinical characteristics of the COPD phenotypes and which met the inclusion criteria were included. The quality assessment was analyzed by Cross-Sectional/Prevalence Study Quality recommendations. The meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan5.3.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.