Search

Objective Since current systematic reviews (SRs) show that results of effectiveness on Tai Chi for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are inconsistent, the purpose of this study is to find the reasons of the disparity by comprehensively appraising the related SRs. Methods Six databases were systematically searched from the inception date to April 17, 2021. The methodological quality, the risk of bias, the reporting quality, and the quality of evidence were independently assessed by two reviewers with the AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, PRISMA, and GRADE. Results A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria: 10 SRs were rated critically low quality and two SRs were low quality by AMSTAR 2. By the ROBIS, four out of 12 SRs were rated as "low risk". According to PRISMA, nine out of 12 SRs were adequately reported over 80%. With the GRADE tool, three out of 12 SRs rated the FEV1 as "Moderate", one out of 12 SRs (1/12, 9%) rated the FEV1/FVC (%) as "Moderate", three out of 12 SRs assessed the 6MWD as "Moderate", three out of 12 SRs evaluated the SGRQ as "Moderate", and the remaining evidence was fully rated as "Low" or "Very Low". Conclusion We found that the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of the included SRs on Tai Chi for COPD were suboptimal. These limitations may have a negative impact on SRs, consequently leading to inconsistent results. Further well-conducted SRs with less risk of bias, more rigorous methodology, normative reporting and high-quality of evidence are needed to provide robust evidence on Tai Chi for COPD. Registration number This study has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42019126600).