| Literature DB >> 27777597 |
Laidi Kan1, Jiaqi Zhang2, Yonghong Yang3, Pu Wang3.
Abstract
Objective. To systematically assess the effects of yoga on pain, mobility, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods. Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and other sources were searched systematically in this study. Two reviewers identified eligible studies and extracted data independently. Downs and Black's Quality Index were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Results. A total of 9 articles (6 studies) involving 372 patients with knee osteoarthritis met the inclusion criteria. The most common yoga protocol is 40~90 minutes/session, lasting for at least 8 weeks. The effect of yoga on pain relief and function improvement could be seen after two-week intervention. Conclusion. This systematic review showed that yoga might have positive effects in relieving pain and mobility on patients with KOA, but the effects on quality of life (QOL) are unclear. Besides, more outcome measure related to mental health of yoga effects on people with KOA should be conducted.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27777597 PMCID: PMC5061981 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6016532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Search strategy and flow chart for this review.
Quality of article included in this review using Downs and Black scale.
| Measures | Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | Ebnezar and Yogitha, 2012 [ | Cheung et al., 2014 [ | Kolasinski et al., 2005 [ | Brenneman et al., 2015 [ | Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | Nambi and Shah, 2013 [ | Ghasemi et al., 2013 [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| (1) Hypothesis/aim/objective | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (2) Main outcome | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (3) Characteristics of participants | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (4) Intervention of interest | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (5) Distribution of principal confounders in each group | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| (6) Main findings | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (7) Estimates of random variability for main outcomes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (8) All important adverse events that may be a consequence of intervention | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| (9) Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (10) Actual probability values for main outcomes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| |||||||||
| (11) Were invitees representative of the population from which they were recruited? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (12) Were subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the population from which recruited? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (13) Were the staff, places, and facilities representative of the treatment that the majority of subjects received? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||
| (14) Was an attempt made to blind subjects to the intervention they received? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (15) Was an attempt made to blind those measuring main outcomes of the intervention? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (16) If any results were based on “data dredging,” was this made clear? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| (17) In trials and cohort studies, did analyses adjust for length of follow-up? Or, in case-control studies, was the period between intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| (18) Were appropriate statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| (19) Was compliance with the intervention reliable? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (20) Were main outcome measures reliable and valid? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
|
| |||||||||
| (21) For trials and cohort studies, were patients in different intervention groups? For case-control studies, were cases and controls recruited from the same population? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (22) For trials and cohort studies, were subjects in different intervention groups? For case-control studies, were cases and controls recruited over same period of time? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (23) Were subjects randomized to intervention groups? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (24) Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and staff until recruitment was complete? Was it irrevocable? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (25) Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in analyses from which main findings were drawn? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (26) Were losses of subjects to follow-up taken into account? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||
| (27) Was there sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect when | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total score (maximum 32) | 17 | 17 | 17 | 23 | 18 | 16 | 17 | 11 | 13 |
A score of 23 or higher indicates good-quality article with low risk of bias.
A score between 22 and 13 indicates medium-quality article with moderate risk of bias.
A score of 12 or lower represents a poor-quality article with high risk of bias [25].
| Study | Study design | Number of Participants | Analyzed number of participants | Duration of KOA (yrs) | Age of the participants | Gender (F/M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | RCT | Y/C = 125/125 | Y/C = 118/117 | <1 yr/1-2 yrs/>2 yrs = 121/79/50 | Y/C = 59.56 ± 9.54/59.42 ± 10.66 | 174/76 |
|
| ||||||
| Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | RCT | Y/C = 125/125 | Y/C = 118/117 | <1 yr/1-2 yrs/>2 yrs = 121/79/50 | Y/C = 59.56 ± 8.18/59.42 ± 10.66 | 174/76 |
|
| ||||||
| Ebnezar and Yogitha, 2012 [ | RCT | Y/C = 125/125 | Y/C = 118/117 | Unclear | Y/C = 59.6 ± 8.2/59.4 ± 10.7 | Unclear |
|
| ||||||
| Cheung et al., 2014 [ | RCT | Y/C = 18/18 | Y/C = 18/18 | At least 6 months | Y/C = 71.9 ± 2.7/71.9 ± 3.1 | All females |
|
| ||||||
| Kolasinski et al., 2005 [ | Single group pre-post study | Y = 11 | Y = 7 | At least 6 months | Y = 58.6 ± 8.6 | All females |
|
| ||||||
| Brenneman et al., 2015 [ | Single group pre-post study | Y = 45 | Y = 39 | Unclear | Y = 60.3 ± 6.5 | All females |
|
| ||||||
| Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | RCT | Y/C = 125/125 | Y/C = 118/117 | <1 yr/1-2 yrs/>2 yrs = 121/79/50 | Y/C = 59.6 ± 8.2/59.4 ± 10.7 | 174/76 |
|
| ||||||
| Nambi and Shah, 2013 [ | RCT | Y/C = 15/15 | Y/C = 15/15 | At least 6 months | Y/C = 52 ± 5/54 ± 4 | 13/17 |
|
| ||||||
| Ghasemi et al., 2013 [ | Quasi-RCT | Y/C = 15/15 | Y/C = 11/14 | Unclear | Y/C = 51 ± 8.9/53.11 ± 10.9 | All females |
| Study | Comparison Intervention | Intervention of control group | Intervention of yoga group | Yoga therapy practice | Main outcomes | Time point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | Yoga + PT versus PT | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | Yogic sukshma vyayamas | Walking pain | 14 weeks |
|
| ||||||
| Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | Yoga + PT versus PT | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | Yogic sukshma vyayamas | QOL (SF-36) | 14 weeks |
|
| ||||||
| Ebnezar and Yogitha, 2012 [ | Yoga + PT versus PT | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | Yogic sukshma vyayamas | Walking pain | 14 weeks |
|
| ||||||
| Cheung et al., 2014 [ | Yoga versus Usual care (8 weeks) | Another program (8 weeks) | Hatha yoga (60 minutes/week/8 weeks) | Asanas | WOMAC | 20 weeks |
|
| ||||||
| Kolasinski et al., 2005 [ | Yoga versus control (no specific exercise) | Modified Iyengar yoga (90-minute classes/week/8 weeks) | Asanas | WOMAC | 8 weeks | |
|
| ||||||
| Brenneman et al., 2015 [ | Yoga versus control (no specific exercise) | Yoga (60 minutes/sessions/3 sessions/week/12 weeks) | Unclear | VAS | 12 weeks | |
|
| ||||||
| Ebnezar et al., 2012 [ | Yoga + PT versus PT | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | PT (20 minutes/day/2 weeks) | Yogic sukshma vyayamas | Anxiety scores | 14 weeks |
|
| ||||||
| Nambi and Shah, 2013 [ | Yoga + EMG biofeedback + Knee strengthening exercise + TENS versus EMG biofeedback + Knee strengthening exercise + TENS | EMG biofeedback (3 times/week/8 weeks) | Iyengar yoga (90 minutes/session, 3 times/week/8 weeks) | Asanas | VAS | 8 weeks |
|
| ||||||
| Ghasemi et al., 2013 [ | Yoga versus ordinary daily activities | Ordinary daily activities | Hatha yoga (60 minutes/session, 3 times/week/8 weeks) |
| VAS | 8 weeks |
WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (lower scores = better state); SPPB: Short Physical Performance Battery (higher scores = better state); QOS: quality of sleep; QOL: quality of life; PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (lower scores = better state); SF-12: Health Related Short Form 12 (higher scores = better state); PCS: physical component summary; MCS: mental component summary; Cantril current and 5 years (higher scores = better state); AIMS2: Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2; GA: Global Assessment; ADL: Activities of Daily Life; VAS: Visual Analog Scale; KOOS: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale; KAM: knee adduction moment; PT: physiotherapy; EMG: electromyography.