The Safety of Yoga: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Holger Cramer*, Lesley Ward, Robert Saper, Daniel Fishbein, Gustav Dobos, Romy Lauche

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As yoga has gained popularity as a therapeutic intervention, its safety has been questioned in the lay press. Thus, this review aimed to systematically assess and meta-analyze the frequency of adverse events in randomized controlled trials of yoga. MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and IndMED were screened through February 2014. Of 301 identified randomized controlled trials of yoga, 94 (1975-2014; total of 8,430 participants) reported on adverse events. Life-threatening, disabling adverse events or those requiring intensive treatment were defined as serious and all other events as nonserious. No differences in the frequency of intervention-related, nonserious, or serious adverse events and of dropouts due to adverse events were found when comparing yoga with usual care or exercise. Compared with psychological or educational interventions (e.g., health education), more intervention-related adverse events (odds ratio = 4.21, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 17.67; P = 0.05) and more nonserious adverse events (odds ratio = 7.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.91, 27.92; P < 0.01) occurred in the yoga group; serious adverse events and dropouts due to adverse events were comparable between groups. Findings from this review indicate that yoga appears as safe as usual care and exercise. The adequate reporting of safety data in future randomized trials of yoga is crucial to conclusively judge its safety.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)281-293
Number of pages13
JournalAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Volume182
Issue number4
Early online date26 Jun 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Aug 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Safety of Yoga: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this