| Title |
Yoga for Heart Rate Variability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10484-015-9291-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Posadzki, Adrian Kuzdzal, Myeong Soo Lee, Edzard Ernst |
| Abstract |
The objective of this systematic review is to summarize and critically assess the effects of yoga on heart rate variability (HRV). Nine databases were searched from their inceptions to June 2014. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing yoga against any type of control intervention in healthy individuals or patients with any medical condition. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane criteria. Two reviewers performed the selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessments independent of one another. Fourteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Only two of them were of acceptable methodological quality. Ten RCTs reported favourable effects of yoga on various domains of HRV, whereas nine of them failed to do so. One RCT did not report between-group comparisons. The meta-analysis (MA) of two trials did not show favourable effects of yoga compared to usual care on E:I ratio (n = 61, SMDs = 0.63; 95 % CIs [-0.72 to 1.99], p = 0.36; heterogeneity: r(2) = 0.79, χ (2) = 5.48, df = 1, (p = 0.02); I(2) = 82 %). The MA also failed to show statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the 30:15 ratio (n = 61, SMDs = 0.20; 95 % CIs [-0.43 to 0.84], p = 0.53; heterogeneity: r(2) = 0.07, χ (2) = 1.45, df = 1, (p = 0.23); I(2) = 31 %). The data from the remaining RCTs were too heterogeneous for pooling. These results provide no convincing evidence for the effectiveness of yoga in modulating HRV in patients or healthy subjects. Future investigations in this area should overcome the multiple methodological weaknesses of the previous research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Researcher | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 38 | 21% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 20% |
| Psychology | 32 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 15 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,246,787
of 25,078,088 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#58
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,965
of 272,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,078,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.