What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Meta-Analysis. Population: Respiratory diseases (n=1007). Intervention: Yoga intervention vs. Control. Primary outcome: FVC% (WMD 3.03, 95% CI 1.71-4.35, p=<0.00001).

What does this research mean for the field?

Yoga intervention significantly improves specific pulmonary function parameters, including FVC%, FEV1, and FEV1%, in clinical populations, supporting its use as an adjunct therapy for respiratory diseases. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

September 1, 2025Open Access

Impact of yoga on pulmonary functions in clinical population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Yoga intervention significantly improved FVC% (WMD 3.03; 95% CI 1.71-4.35; P<0.00001), FEV1, and FEV1% compared to control groups in clinical populations.

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Yoga intervention significantly improves specific pulmonary function parameters, including FVC%, FEV1, and FEV1%, in clinical populations, supporting its use as an adjunct therapy for respiratory diseases. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

Key Result

Yoga intervention significantly improved FVC% (WMD 3.03; 95% CI 1.71-4.35; P<0.00001), FEV1, and FEV1% compared to control groups in clinical populations.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=1,007)

Structured PICO

Does yoga intervention improve pulmonary function in clinical populations with respiratory diseases?

Population

10 RCTs pooling 1007 patients with various respiratory diseases

Intervention

Yoga intervention (YI)

Comparator

Control groups

Outcome

Pulmonary function parameters including FVC%, FEV1, FEV1%, FVC, PEFR, MVV, and FEV1/FVCsurrogate

Yoga intervention demonstrates a positive effect on certain pulmonary function parameters (FVC%, FEV1, FEV1%) and could be considered as an adjunct therapy for individuals with respiratory diseases.

Main Result

Effect estimate: WMD 3.03 (95% CI 1.71-4.35)

p-value: p=<0.00001

Limitations

Limited evidence
Small sample sizes
Lack of long-term data

Abstract

test to assess heterogeneity. Initially, 529 studies were found through the search, with 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1007 patients meeting the inclusion criteria for quality assessment and meta-analysis. The results indicated that yoga intervention (YI) significantly improved FVC% (WMD: 3.03 L, 95 % CI: 1.71, 4.35, P < 0.00001), FEV1 (WMD: 0.47 L, 95 % CI: 0.43, 0.51, P < 0.00001), and FEV1% (WMD: 5.74 L, 95 % CI: 4.47, 7.01, P < 0.00001) when compared to control groups. However, no significant effect was observed on FVC (WMD: 0.23 L, CI: 0.16, 0.62. P = 0.25), PEFR (WMD: 0.49, CI: 0.70, 1.67, P = 0.42), MVV (WMD: 9.01, CI: 3.92, 21.94, P = 0.17), and FEV1/FVC (WMD: 3.17, CI: 1.15, 7.48, P = 0.15) as a result of YI. Based on the limited evidence and meta-analysis conducted, YI demonstrated a positive effect on pulmonary function in clinical populations and could be considered as an adjunct therapy for individuals with various respiratory diseases. Further rigorous research with larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm the long-term benefits of yoga.

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rathore et al. (Mon,) conducted a meta-analysis in Respiratory diseases (n=1,007). Yoga intervention vs. Control was evaluated on FVC% (WMD 3.03, 95% CI 1.71-4.35, p=<0.00001). Yoga intervention significantly improved FVC% (WMD 3.03; 95% CI 1.71-4.35; P<0.00001), FEV1, and FEV1% compared to control groups in clinical populations.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0d53ed88250cfcc2a4e071 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2025.101189

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper