Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
An official website of the United States government
Principal Investigator:
Remy R. Coeytaux, M.D., Ph.D.
Co-Investigators:
Jennifer McDuffie, Ph.D.
Adam Goode, D.P.T., Ph.D.
Sarah Cassel, B.A.
Wei Duan Porter, M.D.
Poonam Sharma, Ph.D.
Sreelatha Meleth, Ph.D.
Hilary Minnella, B.A.
John W. Williams, Jr., M.D., M.H.Sc.
Download PDF: Complete Report, Executive Summary, Report, Appendices
See an update to this report here.
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) strategies, such as yoga, are widely available in the private sector, and some Veterans would like access to these strategies through the VA health care system. Determining the state of evidence on the benefits and harms of yoga and other CAM modalities will help fulfill the joint research needs of the Office of Patient-Centered Care and the Field Advisory Committee on Complementary and Alternative Medicine – and will assist VA leadership in determining the most appropriate guidelines/policy for the implementation of CAM therapies within the VA health care system.
Evidence from good-quality systematic reviews suggests that yoga can improve functional outcomes in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Existing evidence is less clear about the effectiveness and safety of yoga for the other conditions of interest. There is potential benefit for yoga in young to mid-life adults with depressive disorders or elevated depressive symptoms. Investigators also found only preliminary evidence that yoga may have short-term benefit for patients with symptoms of anxiety or insomnia. Few or no trials were found that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of yoga for prevention of falls, PTSD, or insomnia. These findings and conclusions are generally consistent with those of a recent (2013) published review of systematic reviews of yoga for acute and chronic health conditions, which concluded that yoga appears most effective for reducing symptoms in anxiety, depression, and pain. The authors of the 2013 review concluded, as do the investigators of the current review, that the quality of existing systematic reviews is generally good, whereas the quality of the primary studies is generally poor.
