Malarvizhi 2018.

Methods	Design: RCT
Participants	Country: India Setting: outpatient Department of Respiratory Medicine in Sri Ramachandra Medical hospital Severity of asthma: mild or moderate bronchial asthma Diagnosis criteria: GINA criteria Total sample: 250 participants (125 in each group) Mean age, years: not described Age range, years: 21‐60 Gender: 69 men and 56 women (control group); 70 men and 55 women (yoga group) Inclusion criteria: the inclusion criteria consisted of either sex, aged 21‐60 years, who met GINA criteria, minimum of 2 years, able to understand either English or Tamil and willing to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria: participants were excluded if they had severe airflow limitation (FEV1 > 60%), smokers, history of co‐morbid illness (medical, neurologic and psychiatric, orthopaedics) associated chronic respiratory diseases such as TB, autoimmune lung diseases and practised yoga or any other similar discipline.
Interventions	Intervention group: yoga group received 30 min of yoga training for a week under a trained yoga teacher and advised to practise at home daily once a day for 6 months. It consisted of basic asanas (posture) like bhujangasana (cobra pose), tadasana (tree pose) and gomukhasana (cow face pose) for 10 min and simple pranayama (breathing exercise), nadi sudhi pranayama and bhastrika for 10 min followed by relaxation ('om' chanting and shavasana). A yoga checklist booklet was given to the participants to assess the level of performance and monitor the practice. On the regular visits to the outpatient's department days, participants were asked to show return demonstration and their doubts were clarified. During this period at 3 and 6 months, participants were assessed through yoga performance checklist for their level of practice on yoga techniques. Lacunas made during the practice were corrected and reinforced. Control Group: conventional care Frequency of intervention: daily once a day for 6 months
Outcomes	QoL (using AQLQ at baseline, 3 and after 6 months interval)
Notes	Funding: not described Register number: not described The study author responded to our request regarding additional data from AQLQ total scores. However, due to a discrepancy between the graphical presentation and the data provided by correspondence, we were unable to include the data in the analysis.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was undertaken by using random allocation software. Randomisation was performed by 1 of the authors who was not involved in any part of the assessment
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 study arms by using random allocation software
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	The presence of participant blinding was reported and is likely that the blinding could have been broken due the type of intervention used in the study arms
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The outcome was participant‐rated, which could introduce high risk of detection bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, however the reasons for the missing data were not clearly described
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol was not available, but the published reports included all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists