An Audit of the Quality of Reporting and Bias of Studies on Yoga in Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Yoga is increasingly being used as a complementary mode of treatment for epilepsy along with pharmacotherapy; however, the quality of reporting and bias of studies on yoga in epilepsy is uncertain. Objective: This study was performed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality and bias of the published studies on yoga in epilepsy. Materials and methods: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for studies investigating the efficacy of yoga in epilepsy or describing the patients' or caregivers' knowledge, attitude, influence, and practice of yoga in epilepsy. The reporting qualities of the studies were appraised by standard reporting checklists (CONSORT, STROBE, COREQ, and modified CONSORT) and the risks of bias were assessed using standard tools (Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and ROBINS-I tool) according to the study designs. Results: Fifteen studies (four randomized control trials, seven observational studies, three non-randomized interventional studies, and one was a mixed-method study) were included. The reporting qualities of the studies which evaluated the role of yoga in epilepsy were comparatively poor from the methodological perspective and the risks of bias were comparatively high than those which described the knowledge, attitude, influence, and practice of yoga in epilepsy. Conclusion: The reporting qualities of studies in relation to yoga and epilepsy were not satisfactory and the risks of bias were high. Hence, it is imperative to be cautious before widely recommending yoga in 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".