MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4235851150 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001524.pub2

Yoga for epilepsy

2015· review· en· W4235851150 sur OpenAlexaff
Mariangela Panebianco, Kalpana Sridharan, Sridharan Ramaratnam

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCochrane LibraryEpilepsyRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEOdds ratioMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialAdverse effectPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002.Yoga may induce relaxation and stress reduction, and influence the electroencephalogram and the autonomic nervous system, thereby controlling seizures. Yoga would be an attractive therapeutic option for epilepsy if proved effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether people with epilepsy treated with yoga:(a) have a greater probability of becoming seizure free;(b) have a significant reduction in the frequency or duration of seizures, or both; and(c) have a better quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (26 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 26 March 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 26 March 2015), SCOPUS (1823 to 9 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (26 March 2015), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (26 March 2015), and also registries of the Yoga Biomedical Trust and the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. In addition, we searched the references of all the identified studies. No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: The following study designs were eligible for inclusion: randomised controlled trials (RCT) of treatment of epilepsy with yoga. Eligible participants were adults with uncontrolled epilepsy comparing yoga with no treatment or different behavioural treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) percentage of people rendered seizure free; (b) seizure frequency and duration; (c) quality of life. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Two unblinded trials recruited a total of 50 people (18 treated with yoga and 32 to control interventions). Antiepileptic drugs were continued in all the participants. Baseline phase lasted 3 months in both studies and treatment phase from 5 weeks to 6 months in the two trials. Randomisation was by roll of a die in one study and using a computerised randomisation table in the other one but neither study provided details of concealment of allocation and were rated as unclear risk of bias. Overall, the two studies were rated as low risk of bias (all participants were included in the analysis; all expected and pre-expected outcomes were reported; no other sources of bias). The overall OR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was: (i) seizure free for six months - for yoga versus sham yoga ORs of 14.54 (95% CI 0.67 to 316.69) and for yoga versus no treatment group 17.31 (95% CI 0.80 to 373.45); for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) versus yoga ORs of 1.00 (95% Cl 0.16 to 6.42; (ii) reduction in seizure frequency - the Mean Difference between yoga versus sham yoga group was -2.10 (95% CI -3.15 to -1.05) and for yoga versus no treatment group -1.10 (95% CI -1.80 to -0.40); (iii) more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency - for yoga versus sham yoga group ORs of 81.00 (95% CI 4.36 to 1504.46) and for the yoga versus no treatment group 158.33 (95% CI 5.78 to 4335.63); ACT versus yoga ORs of 0.78 (95% Cl 0.04 to 14.75); (iv) more than 50% reduction in seizure duration - for yoga versus sham yoga group ORs of 45.00 (95% CI 2.01 to 1006.75) and for yoga versus no treatment group 53.57 (95% CI 2.42 to 1187.26); ACT versus yoga ORs of 0.67 (95% Cl 0.10 to 4.35). In addition in Panjwani 1996 the authors reported that the one-way analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences between the three groups. A P-Lambda test taking into account the P values between the three groups also indicated that the duration of epilepsy in the three groups was not comparable. No data were available regarding quality of life. In Lundgren 2008 the authors reported that there was no significant difference between the yoga and ACT groups in seizure free rates, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency or seizure duration at one year follow-up. The yoga group showed significant improvement in their quality of life according to the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) (P < 0.05), while the ACT group had significant improvement in the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) scale (P < 0.01). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Study of 50 subjects with epilepsy from two trials reveals possible beneficial effect in control of seizures. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that yoga treatment was better when compared with no intervention or interventions other than yoga (postural exercises mimicking yoga). There was no difference between yoga and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. However no reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of yoga as a treatment for uncontrolled epilepsy, in view of methodological deficiencies such as limited number of studies, limited number of participants randomised to yoga, lack of blinding and limited data on quality-of-life outcome. Physician blinding would normally be taken to be the person delivering the intervention, whereas we think the 'physician' would in fact be the outcome assessor (who could be blinded), so that would be a reduction in detection bias rather than performance bias. In addition, evidence to inform outcomes is limited and of low quality. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy of yoga for refractory epilepsy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,080

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0070,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,284
Tête enseignante GPT0,447
Écart entre enseignants0,162 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207