MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229761494 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001524

Yoga for epilepsy

2002· review· en· W4229761494 on OpenAlexaff
Sridharan Ramaratnam, Kalpana Sridharan

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialRandomizationMEDLINEMeta-analysisClinical trialPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stress is considered an important precipitating factor for seizures. Yoga is believed to induce relaxation and stress reduction. The effect of yoga on the EEG and the autonomic nervous system have been reported. Yoga would be an attractive therapeutic option for epilepsy (if proved effective), in view of its nonpharmacological nature, minimal side effects and international acceptance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of yoga in the treatment of patients with epilepsy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trial register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 1998), MEDLINE for articles published up to the middle of 1998, and also registries of the research council for complimentary medicine were searched. In addition, we searched the references of all the identified studies. Finally, we contacted the members of the Neurological Society of India, several neurophysiology institutions and yoga institutes to seek any ongoing studies or studies published in nonindexed journals or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized control trials and controlled clinical trials of treatment of epilepsy with yoga. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The data were extracted independently by both reviewers and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. The main outcomes assessed were percentage of patients rendered seizure free, number of patients with more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency or seizure duration and the overall reduction in seizure frequency. Analyses were on an intention to treat basis. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study met the selection criteria, and recruited a total of 32 patients, 10 to sahaja yoga and 22 to control treatments. Antiepileptic drugs were continued in all. Randomization was by roll of a dice. The results of this study are as follows: (i) Four patients treated with yoga were seizure free for six months compared to none in the control groups. The Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) for yoga versus sham yoga group was 14.5 (0.7, 316.7) and for yoga versus no treatment group 17.3 (0.8, 373.5). (ii) Nine patients in the yoga group had more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to only one among the controls. The OR (95% CI) for yoga versus sham yoga group was 81 (4.4, 1504.5) and for the yoga versus no treatment group was 158.3 (5.8, 4335.9). (iii) There was a decline in the average number of attacks per month compared to the baseline frequency among the patients treated with yoga. The weighted mean difference ( 95% CI) between yoga versus sham yoga group was -2.1 (-3.1, -1.0) and for the yoga versus no treatment group -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4). (iv) More than 50% reduction in seizure duration was found in seven of the 10 patients treated with yoga, compared to none among the 22 controls. The OR (95%CI) for yoga versus sham yoga group was 45 (2.0, 1006.8) and for yoga versus no treatment group 53.57 (2.4, 1187.3). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of yoga as a treatment for epilepsy. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of yoga in the treatment of epilepsy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207