Tai Chi for treating cancer-related fatigue: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 6 A narrative assessment of the efficacy of Tai Chi for cancer-related fatigue: Analysis of sources of heterogeneity

Analysis dimensions	Number of studies	Ref.	SMD (effect size)	I2	Effect direction and consistency	Notes
Grouped by cancer type
Breast cancer	4	Chen[18] (2021)	-1.70 (-2.51, -0.89)	87%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Han et al[20] (2019)
		Wang[22] (2017)
		Yang et al[23] (2022)
Lung cancer	3	Ge and Shentu[19] (2019)	-0.98 (-1.44, -0.53)	79%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Jiang et al[21] (2013)
		Zhang et al[24] (2016)
Gastric cancer	1	Zheng et al[25] (2022)				Single-study estimate
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma	1	Zhou et al[26] (2018)				Single-study estimate
Grouped by treatment methods
Undergoing chemotherapy	6	Chen[18] (2021)	-1.51 (-2.15, -0.87)	88%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Ge and Shentu[19] (2019)
		Han et al[20] (2019)
		Wang[22] (2017)
		Yang et al[23] (2022)
		Zhang et al[24] (2016)
Undergoing chemoradiotherapy	1	Zhou et al[26] (2018)				Single-study estimate
Routine treatment	2	Jiang et al[21] (2013)	-0.73 (-1.28, -0.19)	64%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Zheng et al[25] (2022)
Grouped by intervention time
≤ 4 weeks	2	Jiang et al[21] (2013)	-0.48 (-0.81, -0.15)	0%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Wang[22] (2017)
4 < weeks ≤ 8	4	Ge and Shentu[19] (2019)	-0.95 (-1.61, -0.28)	86%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Han et al[20] (2019)
		Yang et al[23] (2022)
		Zhou et al[26] (2018)
8 < weeks ≤ 12	5	Han et al[20] (2019)	-1.30 (-1.97, -0.62)	89%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Wang[22] (2017)
		Yang et al[23] (2022)
		Zhang et al[24] (2016)
		Zheng et al[25] (2022)
> 12 weeks	2	Chen[18] (2021)	-1.27 (-2.12, -0.42)	79%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Wang[22] (2017)
Grouped by comparative measures
The control group receiving conventional rehabilitation training	3	Chen[18] (2021)	-1.76 (-2.85, -0.67)	91%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Yang et al[23] (2022)
		Wang[22] (2017)
The control group without conventional rehabilitation training	6	Ge and Shentu[19] (2019)	-1.06 (-1.48, -0.64)	76%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Han et al[20] (2019)
		Jiang et al[21] (2013)
		Zhang et al[24] (2016)
		Zheng et al[25] (2022)
		Zhou et al[26] (2018)
Grouped by assessment scales
CFS	2	Chen[18] (2021)	-3.53 (-4.45, -2.62)	0%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Wang[22] (2017)
RPFS/RPFS-CV	4	Ge and Shentu[19] (2019)	-1.26 (-1.52, -1.00)	56%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Han et al[20] (2019)
		Yang et al[23] (2022)
		Zheng et al[25] (2022)
MFSI-SF	2	Zhang et al[24] (2016)	-9.42 (-15.63, -3.22)	69%	Negative and consistent	Statistically significant negative effect
		Zhou et al[26] (2018)

CRF: Cancer-related fatigue; CFS: Cancer fatigue scale; BFI: Brief fatigue inventory; RPFS: Revised piper fatigue scale; RPFS-CV: Revised piper fatigue scale-Chinese version; MFSI-SF: Multidimensional fatigue symptom inventory-short form.