Wieland L S, Cramer H, Lauche R, Verstappen A, Parker E A, Pilkington K
Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Faculty of Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany; National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia.
Complement Ther Med. 2021 Aug;60:102746. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2021.102746. Epub 2021 Jun 4.
To support the research agenda in yoga for health by comprehensively identifying systematic reviews of yoga for health outcomes and conducting a bibliometric analysis to describe their publication characteristics and topic coverage.
We searched 7 databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PROSPERO) from their inception to November 2019 and 1 database (INDMED) from inception to January 2017. Two authors independently screened each record for inclusion and one author extracted publication characteristics and topics of included reviews.
We retrieved 2710 records and included 322 systematic reviews. 157 reviews were exclusively on yoga, and 165 were on yoga as one of a larger class of interventions (e.g., exercise). Most reviews were published in 2012 or later (260/322; 81 %). First/corresponding authors were from 32 different countries; three-quarters were from the USA, Germany, China, Australia, the UK or Canada (240/322; 75 %). Reviews were most frequently published in speciality journals (161/322; 50 %) complementary medicine journals (66/322; 20 %) or systematic review journals (59/322; 18 %). Almost all were present in MEDLINE (296/322; 92 %). Reviews were most often funded by government or non-profits (134/322; 42 %), unfunded (74/322; 23 %), or not explicit about funding (111/322; 34 %). Common health topics were psychiatric/cognitive (n = 56), cancer (n = 39) and musculoskeletal conditions (n = 36). Multiple reviews covered similar topics, particularly depression/anxiety (n = 18), breast cancer (n = 21), and low back pain (n = 16).
Further research should explore the overall quality of reporting and conduct of systematic reviews of yoga, the direction and certainty of specific conclusions, and duplication or gaps in review coverage of topics.
通过全面识别关于瑜伽对健康影响的系统评价，并进行文献计量分析以描述其发表特征和主题覆盖范围，来支持瑜伽促进健康的研究议程。
我们检索了7个数据库（MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、AMED、Cochrane系统评价数据库和PROSPERO），检索时间从各数据库建库至2019年11月，以及1个数据库（INDMED），检索时间从建库至2017年1月。两位作者独立筛选每条记录以确定是否纳入，一位作者提取纳入评价的发表特征和主题。
我们检索到2710条记录，纳入322篇系统评价。其中157篇评价专门针对瑜伽，165篇将瑜伽作为一大类干预措施（如运动）之一进行研究。大多数评价发表于2012年或之后（260/322；81%）。第一作者/通讯作者来自32个不同国家；四分之三来自美国、德国、中国、澳大利亚、英国或加拿大（240/322；75%）。评价最常发表于专业期刊（161/322；50%）、补充医学期刊（66/322；20%）或系统评价期刊（59/322；18%）。几乎所有评价都收录于MEDLINE（296/322；92%）。评价的资金来源最常见的是政府或非营利组织（134/322；42%）、无资金支持（74/322；23%）或未明确资金情况（111/322；34%）。常见的健康主题包括精神/认知（n = 56）、癌症（n = 39）和肌肉骨骼疾病（n = 36）。多项评价涵盖相似主题，尤其是抑郁/焦虑（n = 18）、乳腺癌（n = 21）和腰痛（n = 16）。
进一步的研究应探讨瑜伽系统评价的报告质量和实施的整体情况、特定结论的方向和确定性，以及主题评价覆盖范围中的重复或空白情况。
