Cited by 207Complementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesPhysical Activity and HealthMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

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

Cramer, Holger, Ward, Lesley, Saper, Robert, Fishbein, Daniel, Dobos, Gustav, Lauche, Romy·2015·American Journal of Epidemiology

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwv071

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 147 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cramer, H., Ward, L., Saper, R., Fishbein, D., Dobos, G., & Lauche, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Cramer, Holger
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2015-06-26
Volume
182
Issue
4
Pages
281-293
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2154895014
Cited by
207
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
yoga, safety, adverse events, serious adverse events, dropout, physical activity, usual care, health education, safety reporting, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Safety, Wounds and Injuries, Yoga, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Mind-Body Therapies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review