Traditional Chinese mind–body practices on anxiety levels in university students: a multilevel dose–response meta-analysis

To estimate the association between traditional Chinese mind–body practices and anxiety symptoms in university students and to explore, rather than prescribe, possible dose–response patterns. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception through May 18, 2026. Randomized controlled trials of Taijiquan, Baduanjin, qigong, and related practices were synthesized as standardized mean differences (SMDs) in a three-level random-effects model. Heterogeneity, prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses, and an exploratory Bayesian dose–response model were examined. Sixteen RCTs contributed 18 dependent effect estimates. Comparator subgroup estimates differed significantly (P-interaction = 0.001): Control-NoInt (waitlist or no intervention) yielded SMD = − 0.92 (95% CI − 1.28 to − 0.56), whereas Control-Int (usual care or another intervention control) yielded SMD = − 0.09 (95% CI − 0.38 to 0.56; p = 0.708). The Control-Int estimate was based on only six effect estimates and was underpowered, with a confidence interval compatible with benefit, no effect, or modest harm. Across all comparators, the pooled estimate was SMD = − 0.56 (95% CI − 0.92 to − 0.20; p = 0.002), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 94.1%). The Bayesian curve had a model-estimated turning point near 20.7 cumulative hours; sparse dose coverage, wide uncertainty at the extremes, and between-study heterogeneity preclude treating this value as an optimal prescription. Low-certainty evidence showed materially different estimates by comparator: Control-NoInt favored the practices, whereas the small Control-Int subgroup was inconclusive. The pooled SMD is a heterogeneous average and should not be interpreted as a uniform benefit or as superiority over usual care or another intervention control. High heterogeneity, study-level risk of bias, geographic concentration in China, and indirect dose modeling do not support a precise dose recommendation or routine implementation without confirmatory trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Psychology
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05432-2
Primary Topic
Biofield Effects and Biophysics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Traditional Chinese mind–body practices on anxiety levels in university students: a multilevel dose–response meta-analysis

Jiajun Lan, Yonghua Liu, Haoran He
BMC Psychology
Biofield Effects and Biophysics
article

Traditional Chinese mind–body practices on anxiety levels in university students: a multilevel dose–response meta-analysis

Jiajun Lan, Yonghua Liu, Haoran He
article en

Abstract

To estimate the association between traditional Chinese mind–body practices and anxiety symptoms in university students and to explore, rather than prescribe, possible dose–response patterns. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception through May 18, 2026. Randomized controlled trials of Taijiquan, Baduanjin, qigong, and related practices were synthesized as standardized mean differences (SMDs) in a three-level random-effects model. Heterogeneity, prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses, and an exploratory Bayesian dose–response model were examined. Sixteen RCTs contributed 18 dependent effect estimates. Comparator subgroup estimates differed significantly (P-interaction = 0.001): Control-NoInt (waitlist or no intervention) yielded SMD = − 0.92 (95% CI − 1.28 to − 0.56), whereas Control-Int (usual care or another intervention control) yielded SMD = − 0.09 (95% CI − 0.38 to 0.56; p = 0.708). The Control-Int estimate was based on only six effect estimates and was underpowered, with a confidence interval compatible with benefit, no effect, or modest harm. Across all comparators, the pooled estimate was SMD = − 0.56 (95% CI − 0.92 to − 0.20; p = 0.002), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 94.1%). The Bayesian curve had a model-estimated turning point near 20.7 cumulative hours; sparse dose coverage, wide uncertainty at the extremes, and between-study heterogeneity preclude treating this value as an optimal prescription. Low-certainty evidence showed materially different estimates by comparator: Control-NoInt favored the practices, whereas the small Control-Int subgroup was inconclusive. The pooled SMD is a heterogeneous average and should not be interpreted as a uniform benefit or as superiority over usual care or another intervention control. High heterogeneity, study-level risk of bias, geographic concentration in China, and indirect dose modeling do not support a precise dose recommendation or routine implementation without confirmatory trials.

BMC Psychology
Xinyang Normal University (CN), Capital University of Physical Education and Sports (CN)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Biofield Effects and Biophysics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.