 |
 |

Response to the Systematic Review of Tai ChiReply
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In reply
My colleagues and I appreciate Ms Taylor-Piliaes comments on our article1 and we welcome the opportunity to clarify several issues. We performed the data abstraction independently in duplicate, and discrepancies were resolved in conferences. We did not calculate inter-rater reliability.
Tai Chi has been practiced in China for many centuries, and many different styles and forms have been developed without clear standardized terminology or techniques. Also there has been inconsistent use of the English name.2-3 The term Tai Chi Chih used in the study by Schaller4 is the same as Tai Chi. Tai Chi is also known as Tai Chi Chuan, Tai Chi Chih, or Tai Ji Quan. Rather than arbitrarily select a single definition of Tai Chi, our systematic review reported the definitions and terminologies as used by the authors in their report.
Concerning the study by Wolf et al,5-6 the authors stated that "For the purpose . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
Chenchen Wang, MD, MSc
RELATED ARTICLES
Response to the Systematic Review of Tai Chi
Ruth E. Taylor-Piliae
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(22):2503.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Effect of Tai Chi on Health Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review
Chenchen Wang, Jean Paul Collet, and Joseph Lau
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(5):493-501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|