Journal article
Is one yoga style better than another? A systematic review of associations of yoga style and conclusions in randomized yoga trials
Complementary Therapies in Medicine, Vol.25, pp.178-187
04/2016
PMID: 27062966
Metrics
10 Record Views
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
Source: InCites
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the odds of positive conclusions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of yoga, differ between yoga styles.
Design: Systematic review of yoga RCTs. Medline/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, IndMED and the tables of content of specialist yoga journals, not listed in medical databases, were screened up to 12 February, 2014 for RCTs comparing yoga interventions to non-yoga interventions. The RCTs’ conclusions were classified as positive (yoga is helpful for a respective condition) or not positive; and these were compared between different yoga styles using the Chi squared test and multiple logistic regression analysis.
Results: A total of 306 RCTs were included. These applied 52 different yoga styles, the most commonly used of which were: hatha yoga (36 RCTs), Iyengar yoga (31 RCTs), pranayama (26 RCTs), and the integrated approach to yoga therapy (15 RCTs). Positive conclusions were reached in 277 RCTs (91%); the proportion of positive conclusions did not differ between yoga styles (p = 0.191).
Conclusion: RCTs with different yoga styles do not differ in their odds of reaching positive conclusions. Given that most RCTs were positive, the choice of an individual yoga style can be based on personal preferences and availability.
Details
- Title
- Is one yoga style better than another? A systematic review of associations of yoga style and conclusions in randomized yoga trials
- Creators
- Holger Cramer - University of Duisburg-EssenRomy Lauche - University of Duisburg-EssenJost Langhorst - University of Duisburg-EssenGustav Dobos - University of Duisburg-Essen
- Publication Details
- Complementary Therapies in Medicine, Vol.25, pp.178-187
- Publisher
- Elsevier Ltd
- Grant note
- This review was supported by a grant from the Rut- and Klaus-Bahlsen-Foundation.
- Identifiers
- 991013036340302368
- Copyright
- © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
- Academic Unit
- Faculty of Health; National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Journal article