Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Quality assessment sorted by study population and quality score

From: Physical and psychosocial benefits of yoga in cancer patients and survivors, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

First author, year 1 2 3 4a 5 6 7 8 9 score %
Banasik, 2011 [56] Y Y Y Y SR Y C N N N 5 63%
Banerjee, 2007 [51] Y Y C Y Y Y Y C Y C N N 7 78%
Blank, 2003 [31] Y ? ? Y N ? N N N 2 22%
Bower, 2012 [58] Y Y Y Y Y ? Y Y Y 8 89%
Carson, 2009 [32] Y Y Y Y Y N C N N Y 6 67%
Chandwani, 2010 [55] Y Y C Y Y SR Y C N N, ES no CI Y 6 75%
Cohen, 2004 [44] Y Y Y Y NC (SR) N C N N, only 95% CI N 4 50%
Culos-Reed, 2006 [52] Y Y Y Y Y C Y C N N Y 7 78%
Danhauer, 2009 [53] Y Y Y Y NC N C N N Y 5 56%
Littman, 2011 [57] Y Y C Y Y Y C Y d N Y N 7 78%
Moadel, 2007 [54] Y Y C Y b Y NC N C N Y Y 6 67%
Raghavendra, 2007 [49] Y Y Y Y SR N N N N 4 50%
Rao, 2009 [50] Y Y Y Y SR N N Y Y 6 67%
Vadiraja, 2009a [46] Y Y Y Y ? ? N N, ES no CI N 4 50%
Vadiraja, 2009b [47] Y Y Y Y SR ? N Y Y 6 75%
Vadiraja, 2009c [48] Y Y Y Y SR ? N N, ES no CI Y 5 56%
  1. NA not applicable, Y yes, N no, ? unclear, a If only exclusion criteria were reported, this was rated as ‘unclear’; b In the analyses, the baseline differences were included as covariates. C after contacting authors; d Yoga instructors were aware that the study aim was to determine the feasibility of conducting a yoga intervention in overweight and obese breast cancer survivors (not efficacy). SR self report, CI Confidence interval, ES effect size.