Table 3.

Categorical moderator results for depression comparing yoga versus control groups.

Moderator	k	ES	SE	Var.	95%CI	Z	p(Z)	Qbet	p(Qbet)
Source characteristics
Funding								6.686	<.010
Unfunded	5	1.978	.436	.190	1.124, 2.833	4.538	<.001
Funded	7	.511	.363	.132	−.201, 1.223	1.406	.160
Country								6.889	.009
Western	6	.401	.382	.146	−.349, 1.151	1.048	.295
Eastern	6	1.824	.384	.147	1.071, 2.576	4.750	<.001
Method characteristics
Blinded data collection								.961	.327
No	9	1.306	.370	.137	.581, 2.031	3.533	.001
Yes	3	.590	.630	.393	−.645, 1.825	.937	.349
Concealed allocation								1.647	.199
No	8	.833	.392	.154	.065, 1.601	2.125	.034
Yes	4	1.706	.556	.309	.617, 2.796	3.069	.002
Power of sample								.150	.698
No	5	.973	.504	.254	−.015, 1.961	1.930	.054
Yes	7	1.228	.420	.177	.404, 2.051	2.922	.003
Equally of participants ‘characteristic at baseline								.600	.439
No	3	.645	.691	.478	−.710, 2.000	.933	.351
Yes	6	1.303	.493	.243	.337, 2.270	2.642	.008
Intervention characteristics
Type of yoga								.408	.523
Yoga mindfulness	6	1.331	.458	.210	.433, 2.229	2.904	.004
Yoga exercise	6	.918	.456	.208	.025, 1.812	2.014	.044
Guided yoga								.006	.940
No	3	1.166	.645	.417	−.099, 2.431	1.807	.071
Yes	9	1.109	.374	.140	.377, 1.842	2.970	.003
Participants
Major depressive disorder								4.555	.033
No	9	1.454	.319	.102	.828, 2.080	4.554	<.001
Yes	3	.099	.549	.301	−.977, 1.175	.180	.857

k = number of comparisons, Q = heterogeneity statistics, SE=standard error, Var. = variance, NR = not reported.