Table 2.
General study information, including the first author, type, country, study groups, and results of the quality appraisal assessment.a
| Author, study type, and country | Study groups | Selection bias | Study design |
Confounders | Blinding | Data collection methods | Withdrawals or dropouts | Global ratingb |
| Armstrong et al [14], RCT,c United States | Yoga video vs regular activity | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak |
| Awdish et al [15], case series, United States | Yoga video; no comparison | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak |
| Donesky et al [16], nonrandomized quasi-experimental, United States and United Kingdom | Yoga via videoconferencing vs health education phone call | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
| Gunda et al [17], nonrandomized quasi-experimental, United States | Yoga DVD; control not clearly described | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Weak |
| Huberty et al [18], RCT, United States | Web-based yoga videos vs wait-list control | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Huberty et al [23], RCT, United States | Web-based yoga videos (2 doses) vs stretch and tone control | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Moderate |
| Jasti et al [24], single group, India | Tele-yoga module | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak |
| Kyeongra et al [19], RCT, United States | Yoga DVD vs in-person yoga | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Mullur et al [20], RCT, United States | Yoga DVD vs handouts about yoga | Moderate | Weak | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak |
| Sakuma et al [21], RCT, Japan | Yoga DVD vs regular activities | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak |
| Schuver et al [22], RCT, United States | Yoga DVD vs DVD on walking | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Stan et al [13], RCT, United States | Yoga DVD vs DVD on strengthening | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
aThe quality appraisal assessment was completed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies with six domains contributing to the score: (1) selection bias, (2) study design, (3) confounders, (4) blinding, (5) data collection methods, and (6) withdrawals and dropouts.
bGlobal ratings were determined as follows: no weak ratings=strong, one weak rating=moderate, and ≥2 weak ratings=weak.
cRCT: randomized controlled trial.