↓ Skip to main content

Yoga for asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
119 X users
facebook
19 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
389 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 for asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010346.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zu‐Yao Yang, Hui‐Bin Zhong, Chen Mao, Jin‐Qiu Yuan, Yafang Huang, Xin‐Yin Wu, Yuan‐Mei Gao, Jin‐Ling Tang

Abstract

Asthma is a common chronic inflammatory disorder affecting about 300 million people worldwide. As a holistic therapy, yoga has the potential to relieve both the physical and psychological suffering of people with asthma, and its popularity has expanded globally. A number of clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate the effects of yoga practice, with inconsistent results. To assess the effects of yoga in people with asthma. We systematically searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched PEDro. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP search portal. We searched all databases from their inception to 22 July 2015, and used no restriction on language of publication. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles for additional studies. We attempted to contact investigators of eligible studies and experts in the field to learn of other published and unpublished studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared yoga with usual care (or no intervention) or sham intervention in people with asthma and reported at least one of the following outcomes: quality of life, asthma symptom score, asthma control, lung function measures, asthma medication usage, and adverse events. We extracted bibliographic information, characteristics of participants, characteristics of interventions and controls, characteristics of methodology, and results for the outcomes of our interest from eligible studies. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to denote the treatment effects, if the outcomes were measured by the same scale across studies. Alternatively, if the outcomes were measured by different scales across studies, we used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI to measure the treatment effects. We performed meta-analysis with Review Manager 5.3. We used the fixed-effect model to pool the data, unless there was substantial heterogeneity among studies, in which case we used the random-effects model instead. For outcomes inappropriate or impossible to pool quantitatively, we conducted a descriptive analysis and summarised the findings narratively. We included 15 RCTs with a total of 1048 participants. Most of the trials were conducted in India, followed by Europe and the United States. The majority of participants were adults of both sexes with mild to moderate asthma for six months to more than 23 years. Five studies included yoga breathing alone, while the other studies assessed yoga interventions that included breathing, posture, and meditation. Interventions lasted from two weeks to 54 months, for no more than six months in the majority of studies. The risk of bias was low across all domains in one study and unclear or high in at least one domain for the remainder.There was some evidence that yoga may improve quality of life (MD in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score per item 0.57 units on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.77; 5 studies; 375 participants), improve symptoms (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65; 3 studies; 243 participants), and reduce medication usage (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.29 to 22.11; 2 studies) in people with asthma. The MD for AQLQ score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5, but whether the mean changes exceeded the MCID for asthma symptoms is uncertain due to the lack of an established MCID in the severity scores used in the included studies. The effects of yoga on change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (MD 0.04 litres, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.19; 7 studies; 340 participants; I(2) = 68%) were not statistically significant. Two studies indicated improved asthma control, but due to very significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 98%) we did not pool data. No serious adverse events associated with yoga were reported, but the data on this outcome was limited. We found moderate-quality evidence that yoga probably leads to small improvements in quality of life and symptoms in people with asthma. There is more uncertainty about potential adverse effects of yoga and its impact on lung function and medication usage. RCTs with a large sample size and high methodological and reporting quality are needed to confirm the effects of yoga for asthma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 119 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 389 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 386 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 57 15%
Student > Master 46 12%
Researcher 33 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 7%
Student > Postgraduate 23 6%
Other 64 16%
Unknown 139 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 70 18%
Psychology 26 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Other 33 8%
Unknown 152 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 325. 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 10 December 2023.
All research outputs
#102,968
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#196
of 11,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,003
of 312,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 312,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.