Oh Jung-Ho, Sung Soo-Hyun, Park Jang-Kyung, Jang Soobin, Shin Byung-Cheul, Lee Sangnam
Department of Qigong, College of Korean Medicine, Daegu Haany University, Gyeongsan 38609, Republic of Korea.
Department of Policy Development, National Institute for Korean Medicine Development, Seoul 04516, Republic of Korea.
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Nov 23;12(23):2342. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12232342.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Althouth Qigong is commonly used to manage stress, anxiety, and depression, there have been no systematic reviews on Qigong therapy for stress management. This study aimed to analyze the clinical evidence of Qigong therapy for perceived stress.
We conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Qigong using 11 electronic databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, CINAHL, and Korean Medical databases (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Korean traditional knowledge portal, KoreaMed, OASIS, RISS, and the National Library of Korea). We considered RCTs in which participants with perceived stress with no restrictions on age, gender, or ethnicity. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias of the included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Nine RCTs (China: = 5, South Korea: = 2, United States: = 1, Brunei Darussalam: = 1) were included in the systematic review.
The quality of the included trials was generally low, as only one was rated as high quality. For the primary outcome, a meta-analysis of two RCTs showed statistically significant results on the perceived stress scale comparing the Qigong therapy group with the no-treatment group (OR -0.60; 95% CI -1.02 to -0.17; = 0.006). The results of three other studies showed that Qigong therapy had no significant effect compared to active-control therapy on the perceived stress scale outcome (OR -2.10; 95% CI -4.68 to 0.47; = 0.11). Regarding the secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety scale, and quality of life, the Qigong group showed statistical improvements in most studies; however, there was no difference in the pain scale between the two groups. In two studies, no adverse events occurred, whereas in one study, six cases (24% of participants) of mild muscle soreness were reported.
This systematic review suggests the potential of Qigong therapy for stress management; however, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions. Future studies should standardize Qigong interventions and outcomes, establish sham control groups, and include larger sample sizes in RCTs.
背景/目的：尽管气功常用于应对压力、焦虑和抑郁，但尚未有关于气功疗法用于压力管理的系统评价。本研究旨在分析气功疗法缓解感知压力的临床证据。
我们使用11个电子数据库对气功的随机对照试验（RCT）进行了系统检索，这些数据库分别是MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、物理治疗证据数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库、韩国医学数据库（韩国科学技术信息研究所、韩国传统知识门户、韩国医学、OASIS、RISS以及韩国国家图书馆）。我们纳入了对感知压力的参与者进行的RCT，对年龄、性别或种族没有限制。两名评审员使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具独立评估纳入的RCT的偏倚风险。本系统评价纳入了9项RCT（中国：5项，韩国：2项，美国：1项，文莱达鲁萨兰国：1项）。
纳入试验的质量普遍较低，只有1项被评为高质量。对于主要结局，两项RCT的荟萃分析显示，在感知压力量表上，气功疗法组与未治疗组相比有统计学显著结果（OR -0.60；95%CI -1.02至-0.17；P = 0.006）。其他三项研究的结果显示，在感知压力量表结局方面，与积极对照疗法相比，气功疗法没有显著效果（OR -2.10；95%CI -4.68至0.47；P = 0.11）。关于次要结局，包括抑郁、焦虑量表和生活质量，在大多数研究中气功组有统计学上的改善；然而，两组在疼痛量表上没有差异。在两项研究中，未发生不良事件，而在一项研究中，报告了6例（占参与者的24%）轻度肌肉酸痛。
本系统评价提示气功疗法在压力管理方面具有潜力；然而，难以得出具体结论。未来的研究应规范气功干预措施和结局，建立假手术对照组，并在RCT中纳入更大样本量。
