H Harder1, L Parlour, V Jenkins. 1. Sussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RX, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Yoga is increasingly used as a complementary therapy to manage disease and treatment-related side effects in patients with cancer and has resulted in an increase in the number of studies exploring the effectiveness of yoga interventions. This systematic review examines whether yoga interventions provide any measurable benefit, both physically and psychologically, for women with breast cancer. The results will inform future research in this field and advance the development of yoga programmes. METHODS: We performed electronic searches of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science and Scopus for articles published up to June 2012. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included and methodological quality rating scores were determined using the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) Scale. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two studies were identified through a systematic search of eight electronic databases. Only published manuscripts that employed a RCT design were included (n = 18). The sample sizes for these studies varied widely from 18 to 164 participants and the associated PEDro scores ranged from 1 (poor) to 8 (good). All 18 studies reported positive effects for treatment-related side effects in favour of the yoga interventions, with the greatest impact on global quality of life (QoL) scores and emotional well-being. CONCLUSION: Results from the few RCTs suggest there is moderate to good evidence that yoga may be a useful practice for women recovering from breast cancer treatments. Large-scale RCTs using objective measures and patient-reported outcomes with long-term follow-up are needed to substantiate whether the benefits are true and sustainable.
PURPOSE: Yoga is increasingly used as a complementary therapy to manage disease and treatment-related side effects in patients with cancer and has resulted in an increase in the number of studies exploring the effectiveness of yoga interventions. This systematic review examines whether yoga interventions provide any measurable benefit, both physically and psychologically, for women with breast cancer. The results will inform future research in this field and advance the development of yoga programmes. METHODS: We performed electronic searches of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science and Scopus for articles published up to June 2012. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included and methodological quality rating scores were determined using the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) Scale. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two studies were identified through a systematic search of eight electronic databases. Only published manuscripts that employed a RCT design were included (n = 18). The sample sizes for these studies varied widely from 18 to 164 participants and the associated PEDro scores ranged from 1 (poor) to 8 (good). All 18 studies reported positive effects for treatment-related side effects in favour of the yoga interventions, with the greatest impact on global quality of life (QoL) scores and emotional well-being. CONCLUSION: Results from the few RCTs suggest there is moderate to good evidence that yoga may be a useful practice for women recovering from breast cancer treatments. Large-scale RCTs using objective measures and patient-reported outcomes with long-term follow-up are needed to substantiate whether the benefits are true and sustainable.
Authors: Kavita D Chandwani; Bob Thornton; George H Perkins; Banu Arun; N V Raghuram; H R Nagendra; Qi Wei; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: J Soc Integr Oncol Date: 2010
Authors: Julienne E Bower; Deborah Garet; Beth Sternlieb; Patricia A Ganz; Michael R Irwin; Richard Olmstead; Gail Greendale Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kerry S Courneya; Donald C McKenzie; Robert D Reid; John R Mackey; Karen Gelmon; Christine M Friedenreich; Aliya B Ladha; Caroline Proulx; Kirstin Lane; Jeffrey K Vallance; Roanne J Segal Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2008-02-20
Authors: James W Carson; Kimberly M Carson; Laura S Porter; Francis J Keefe; Victoria L Seewaldt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David W Kissane; Brenda Grabsch; Anthony Love; David M Clarke; Sidney Bloch; Graeme C Smith Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Alyson B Moadel; Chirag Shah; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Melanie S Harris; Sapana R Patel; Charles B Hall; Joseph A Sparano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R M Raghavendra; R Nagarathna; H R Nagendra; K S Gopinath; B S Srinath; B D Ravi; S Patil; B S Ramesh; R Nalini Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Heather M Derry; Lisa M Jaremka; Jeanette M Bennett; Juan Peng; Rebecca Andridge; Charles Shapiro; William B Malarkey; Charles F Emery; Rachel Layman; Ewa Mrozek; Ronald Glaser; Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jennifer Huberty; Ryan Eckert; Krisstina Gowin; Jules Mitchell; Amylou C Dueck; Brenda F Ginos; Linda Larkey; Ruben Mesa Journal: Haematologica Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Elizabeth L Addington; Stephanie J Sohl; Alejandro Chaoul; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laura S Porter; James W Carson; Maren Olsen; Kimberly M Carson; Linda Sanders; Lee Jones; Kelly Westbrook; Francis J Keefe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser; Jeanette M Bennett; Rebecca Andridge; Juan Peng; Charles L Shapiro; William B Malarkey; Charles F Emery; Rachel Layman; Ewa E Mrozek; Ronald Glaser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 44.544