Mapping systematic review evidence on yoga interventions: what has been done and are there gaps?

Session: 

Oral session: Priority setting (3)

Date: 

Monday 17 September 2018 - 11:40 to 12:00

Location: 

Ochil 1

All authors in correct order:

Wieland LS1, Cramer H2, Lauche R3, Verstappen A4, Parker E1, Pilkington K5
1 University of Maryland School of Medicine, USA
2 University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
3 University of Technology Sydney, Australia
4 Global Alliance for Rheumatic and Congenital Hearts, USA
5 University of Portsmouth, UK
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

L. Susan Wieland

Contact person:

L. Susan Wieland
Abstract text
Background:
Yoga is a popular mind-body practice often used for treatment or prevention of health conditions. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of yoga interventions have been conducted in recent years.

Objectives:
Comprehensively, to identify current yoga SRs to:
- describe the characteristics and topic coverage of yoga SRs, to highlight duplication and prevent research waste; and
- compare health conditions in yoga SRs and yoga RCTs, to identify answerable questions for yoga SRs.

Methods:
We searched eight databases from inception to January 2017; two authors independently screened and selected records for inclusion (see Figure 1). We extracted bibliographic data and health conditions for all protocols and reviews. For completed SRs focusing solely on yoga, we dually extracted information on conclusions. We mapped topics of yoga SRs against those of yoga RCTs described in previous research.

Results:
We identified 209 ongoing and completed SRs of yoga interventions. Half of the completed SRs focused solely on yoga (n = 96). Among these SRs, 80% were published in 2012 or later, 50% originated from the USA or Germany, 55% were published in specialty journals, and 40% did not explicitly state review funding. Most SRs clearly stated that yoga had positive effects; only one was negative.

SRs most often addressed cardiovascular (n = 16), psychiatric (n = 15), musculoskeletal (n = 14), cancer (n = 14), and metabolic (n = 9) topics, corresponding to the most common topics in yoga RCTs. Within topics, some conditions (e.g. depression) had many SRs and RCTs, while others (e.g. schizophrenia) had many SRs but few RCTs, and yet others (e.g. stress) had few SRs but many RCTs. The extent of question overlap in multiple SRs covering the same condition is currently being examined.

Conclusions:
Initial findings suggest consistency between the general topics focus of RCTs and SRs, but there are potential mismatches for specific conditions. There may also be duplication between SRs for some conditions, depending upon the specific SR questions. We will present an overview of topics coverage in yoga SRs and RCTs, followed by a structured identification of overlap, and suggest how these results may inform the SR research agenda.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: A consumer partner is a co-author.

Attachments: 

PDF icon Flow diagram of yoga SR selection.pdf

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

An estimated 300 million people worldwide practiced yoga in 2016. Many of these people use yoga to prevent or treat health symptoms or conditions, and would like reliable information about the health effects of yoga. This study provides a needed resource to help consumers identify yoga reviews (SRs) in their interest area and see where there are SR uncertainties that could be addressed by trials (RCTs). By comparing the patterns of SRs and RCTs to patient-reported usage patterns, these findings can also be used to prioritize research in areas of high consumer interest. The patient/consumer co-author drafted this statement.