Kim 2012.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Healthy premenopausal women who were 35 to 50 years old were recruited from the University of Oklahoma and the surrounding city area by flyers, adverts in local newspapers and mail. 47 participants were randomly assigned to 2 arms: yoga exercise group and control group Inclusion criteria: free of chronic back or joint problems, cardiovascular disease, non‐smokers, not pregnant, not taking antihypertensive drugs, not taking hormonal contraception, medically stable, ambulatory and capable of undergoing physical strength testing/training 27 participants were randomised to yoga and 20 participants were randomised to the control group The paper was published in the USA |
|
| Interventions | Yoga group: Ashtanga yoga was taught Mondays and Wednesdays from 6.30 to 7.30 am. 64 sessions were provided over 8 months. Each session lasted 60 minutes, which consisted of 15 minutes warm‐up, 35 minutes of postures and 10 minutes cool‐down with relaxation. Dynamic and static stretching was introduced during the warm‐up at the beginning with either sitting, supine or standing postures. A certified yoga instructor led all yoga sessions and precisely taught postures with consistent instructions. Session intensity was progressively increased by adding the number of Sun Salutations and jumping during the 8‐month intervention. All yoga postures were followed by the English name Control group: encouraged to maintain normal daily physical activity Follow‐up was 8 months |
|
| Outcomes | Blood pressure | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not stated but it is difficult, if not impossible, to blind participants and personnel to behavioural interventions such as exercise |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | 40% lost to follow‐up in intervention group and 10% in control group. Also no intention‐to‐treat analysis |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes stated were reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to judge |