Evidence on yoga for health: A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews.
Evidence on yoga for health: A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ctim.2021.102746
复制
发表时间：
2021-08
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Pilkington K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wieland LS;Cramer H;Lauche R;Verstappen A;Parker EA;Pilkington K
通过全面识别瑜伽对健康结果的系统评价，并进行文献计量学分析，以描述其出版特征和主题覆盖范围，支持瑜伽对健康的研究议程。我们检索了7个数据库（MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、AMED、科克伦系统评价数据库和PROSPERO），检索时间为2019年11月，检索时间为2017年1月。两名作者独立筛选每条记录以纳入，一名作者提取纳入综述的出版物特征和主题。我们检索了2710条记录，纳入了322篇系统评价。157篇评论专门针对瑜伽，165篇评论将瑜伽作为一种更大的干预措施（例如，锻炼）。大多数综述发表于2012年或之后（260/322; 81%）。第一作者/通讯作者来自32个不同国家;四分之三来自美国、德国、中国、澳大利亚、英国或加拿大（240/322; 75%）。综述最常发表在专业期刊（161/322; 50%）、补充医学期刊（66/322; 20%）或系统综述期刊（59/322; 18%）。几乎所有病例均在MEDLINE中出现（296/322; 92%）。审查最常见的是由政府或非营利组织资助（134/322; 42%），无资金（74/322; 23%），或没有明确的资金（111/322; 34%）。常见的健康主题为精神/认知（n=56）、癌症（n=39）和肌肉骨骼疾病（n=36）。多篇综述涵盖了相似的主题，特别是抑郁/焦虑（n=18）、乳腺癌（n=21）和腰痛（n=16）。进一步的研究应该探索瑜伽系统综述的报告和实施的整体质量，具体结论的方向和确定性，以及主题综述覆盖范围的重复或空白。
To support the research agenda in yoga for health by comprehensively identifying systematic reviews of yoga for health outcomes and conducting a bibliometric analysis to describe their publication characteristics and topic coverage. We searched 7 databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PROSPERO) from their inception to November 2019 and 1 database (INDMED) from inception to January 2017. Two authors independently screened each record for inclusion and one author extracted publication characteristics and topics of included reviews. We retrieved 2710 records and included 322 systematic reviews. 157 reviews were exclusively on yoga, and 165 were on yoga as one of a larger class of interventions (e.g., exercise). Most reviews were published in 2012 or later (260/322; 81%). First/corresponding authors were from 32 different countries; three-quarters were from the USA, Germany, China, Australia, the UK or Canada (240/322; 75%). Reviews were most frequently published in speciality journals (161/322; 50%) complementary medicine journals (66/322; 20%) or systematic review journals (59/322; 18%). Almost all were present in MEDLINE (296/322; 92%). Reviews were most often funded by government or non-profits (134/322; 42%), unfunded (74/322; 23%), or not explicit about funding (111/322; 34%). Common health topics were psychiatric/cognitive (n=56), cancer (n=39) and musculoskeletal conditions (n=36). Multiple reviews covered similar topics, particularly depression/anxiety (n=18), breast cancer (n=21), and low back pain (n=16). Further research should explore the overall quality of reporting and conduct of systematic reviews of yoga, the direction and certainty of specific conclusions, and duplication or gaps in review coverage of topics.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.3390/children4020012
发表时间：
2017-02-10
期刊：
Children (Basel, Switzerland)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Stephens I
通讯作者：
Stephens I
影响因子：
--
作者：
Gupta, B. M.;Mueen, A. K. K.;Gupta, R.
通讯作者：
Gupta, R.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Pearson, Neil;Prosko, Shelly;Taylor, Matthew J
通讯作者：
Taylor, Matthew J
DOI：
10.1155/2013/945895
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM
影响因子：
--
作者：
McCall MC;Ward A;Roberts NW;Heneghan C
通讯作者：
Heneghan C
影响因子：
--
作者：
Kimura, Keishin
通讯作者：
Kimura, Keishin