Chow 2012.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Healthy middle‐aged adults recruited by posters, leaflets and emails in April 2009 in Hong Kong. Inclusion criteria: 18 years or older, non‐smokers, physically healthy (i.e. not taking medication for chronic disease), able to partake in medium‐intensity exercise and demonstrating at least a mild degree of mood disturbance on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). Exclusion criteria: used psychiatric drugs within the previous 6 months, pregnant, chronic illness, have learned any type of mindful exercise (e.g. yoga, qigong) and have practised it regularly throughout the last year, regularly participate in other sports (e.g. swimming) 68 participants (45 women, 23 men) with a mean age of 44.2 years (standard deviation (SD) 11.03, range 21 to 64) were randomly assigned |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: The elementary syllabus of chan mi gong was restructured to integrate warm‐up and cool‐down elements. This approach was evaluated by a 7‐member expert panel. The intervention group learnt and practised the qigong protocol once a week for 8 weeks under supervision of the instructor, and then continued with 4 weeks of home practise. The intervention period was 12 weeks, and measurements were taken at baseline and at 12 weeks Control: wait list control. Participants were offered the intervention after 12 weeks |
|
| Outcomes | Blood pressure | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Participants first were matched by age and gender, and the pairs were randomly allocated to intervention or control. Method of randomisation was not stated |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Per‐protocol analysis but small loss to follow‐up (4 of 68) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes listed were reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Information was insufficient for judgement |