A Rani Elwy1, Erik J Groessl2, Susan V Eisen3, Kristen E Riley4, Meghan Maiya5, Jennifer P Lee6, Andrew Sarkin5, Crystal L Park4. 1. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford; Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachussets. Electronic address: relwy@bu.edu. 2. Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego; Health Services Research Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford; Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachussets. 4. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. 5. Health Services Research Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachussets.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The scientific study of yoga requires rigorous methodology. This review aimed to systematically assess all studies of yoga interventions to (1) determine yoga intervention characteristics; (2) examine methodologic quality of the subset of RCTs; and (3) explore how well these interventions are reported. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches were conducted through April 2012 in PubMed, PsycINFO, Ageline, and Ovid's Alternative and Complementary Medicine database using the text term yoga, and through handsearching five journals. Original studies were included if the intervention (1) consisted of at least one yoga session with some type of health assessment; (2) targeted adults aged ≥18 years; (3) was published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; and (4) was available for review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 3,062 studies identified, 465 studies in 30 countries were included. Analyses were conducted through 2013. Most interventions took place in India (n=228) or the U.S. (n=124), with intensity ranging from a single yoga session up to two sessions per day. Intervention lengths ranged from one session to 2 years. Asanas (poses) were mentioned as yoga components in 369 (79%) interventions, but were either minimally or not at all described in 200 (54%) of these. Most interventions (74%, n=336) did not include home practice. Of the included studies, 151 were RCTs. RCT quality was rated as poor. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the inadequate reporting and methodologic limitations of current yoga intervention research, which limits study interpretation and comparability. Recommendations for future methodology and reporting are discussed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: The scientific study of yoga requires rigorous methodology. This review aimed to systematically assess all studies of yoga interventions to (1) determine yoga intervention characteristics; (2) examine methodologic quality of the subset of RCTs; and (3) explore how well these interventions are reported. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches were conducted through April 2012 in PubMed, PsycINFO, Ageline, and Ovid's Alternative and Complementary Medicine database using the text term yoga, and through handsearching five journals. Original studies were included if the intervention (1) consisted of at least one yoga session with some type of health assessment; (2) targeted adults aged ≥18 years; (3) was published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; and (4) was available for review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 3,062 studies identified, 465 studies in 30 countries were included. Analyses were conducted through 2013. Most interventions took place in India (n=228) or the U.S. (n=124), with intensity ranging from a single yoga session up to two sessions per day. Intervention lengths ranged from one session to 2 years. Asanas (poses) were mentioned as yoga components in 369 (79%) interventions, but were either minimally or not at all described in 200 (54%) of these. Most interventions (74%, n=336) did not include home practice. Of the included studies, 151 were RCTs. RCT quality was rated as poor. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the inadequate reporting and methodologic limitations of current yoga intervention research, which limits study interpretation and comparability. Recommendations for future methodology and reporting are discussed. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Robert B Saper; David M Eisenberg; Roger B Davis; Larry Culpepper; Russell S Phillips Journal: Altern Ther Health Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.305
Authors: Karen J Sherman; Daniel C Cherkin; Robert D Wellman; Andrea J Cook; Rene J Hawkes; Kristin Delaney; Richard A Deyo Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-10-24
Authors: Crystal L Park; A Rani Elwy; Meghan Maiya; Andrew J Sarkin; Kristen E Riley; Susan V Eisen; Ian Gutierrez; Lucy Finkelstein-Fox; Sharon Y Lee; Danielle Casteel; Tosca Braun; Erik J Groessl Journal: Int J Yoga Therap Date: 2018-03-02
Authors: Crystal L Park; Erik Groessl; Meghan Maiya; Andrew Sarkin; Susan V Eisen; Kristen Riley; A Rani Elwy Journal: Complement Ther Med Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: Caio Victor de Sousa; Marcelo Magalhães Sales; Thiago Santos Rosa; John Eugene Lewis; Rosangela Vieira de Andrade; Herbert Gustavo Simões Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Erik J Groessl; Meghan Maiya; A Rani Elwy; Kristen E Riley; Andrew J Sarkin; Susan V Eisen; Tosca Braun; Ian Gutierrez; Luwam Kidane; Crystal L Park Journal: Int J Yoga Therap Date: 2015
Authors: Archana Asundi; Jack Resnik; Peter A Benedict; Marlena Shin; A Rani Elwy; Westyn Branch-Elliman Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Lisa M Betthauser; Jeri E Forster; Ann Bortz; Molly Penzenik; Theresa D Hernández; Nazanin Bahraini; Lisa A Brenner Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-04-02
Authors: Melvin T Donaldson; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer; Joseph E Gaugler; Erik J Groessl; Shannon M Kehle-Forbes; Melissa A Polusny; Erin E Krebs Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.178