↓ Skip to main content

Yoga as part of a package of care versus standard care for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Yoga as part of a package of care versus standard care for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012145.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Broderick, Davy Vancampfort

Abstract

Yoga is an ancient spiritual practice that originated in India and is currently accepted in the Western world as a form of relaxation and exercise. It has been of interest for people with schizophrenia to determine the efficacy of yoga delivered as a package of care versus standard care. To examine the effects of yoga as a package of care versus standard care. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (latest 30 March 2017) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSS, AMED, PsychINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We searched the references of all included studies. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with schizophrenia comparing yoga as a package of care with standard-care control. The review authors independently selected studies, quality rated these, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk difference (RD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its CI. We employed mixed-effect and fixed-effect models for analysis. We examined heterogeneity (I(2) technique), assessed risk of bias for included studies, and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Three studies are included in this review. All outcomes were short term (less than eight weeks). Useable data were reported for two outcomes only; leaving the study early and quality of life. None of the participants left the studies early and there was some evidence in favour of the yoga package for quality of life endpoint scores (1 RCT, n=80, MD 22.93 CI 19.74 to 26.12, low-quality evidence). Leaving the study early data were equivocal between the treatment groups (3 RCTs, n=193, RD 0.06 CI -0.01 to 0.13, medium-quality evidence, high heterogeneity). Overall, this review has an inordinate number of missing key outcomes, which included mental and global state, social functioning, physical health, adverse effects and costs of care. A small number of small studies were included in this review and these lacked many key outcomes. The sparse data means we cannot state with any degree of certainty if yoga delivered as a package of care is beneficial in comparison to standard care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 16%
Psychology 19 12%
Sports and Recreations 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 39 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,011,623
of 15,295,156 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,746
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,819
of 277,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,295,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 277,922 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.