This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for Ancillary Study of the Lessening Incontinence With Low-impact Activity Study (NCT04776720), a randomized na study. The primary outcome is Change From Baseline in One-legged Balance Test (Winsorized).
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT04776720 |
| Phase | NA |
| Condition | Urinary Incontinence |
| Allocation | Randomized |
| Design model | Parallel |
| Masking | Double |
| Enrollment | 240 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | 2 |
| Lead sponsor | University of California, San Francisco |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
The registry describes the parent trial as enrolling ambulatory women aged 45 years and older who reported daily or more frequent stress-, urgency-, or mixed-type urinary incontinence. Participants were not already engaged in formal yoga or muscle stretching and strengthening programs, were willing to temporarily forgo other incontinence treatments, and could walk to and use the bathroom without assistance. The record also notes other eligibility criteria without specifying them in the summary.
Intervention
The yoga program was a 3-month group intervention. It included instruction and practice in yoga postures and techniques selected by study yoga consultants for their potential to improve bladder control and their safety and feasibility for the target population. The parent-trial summary describes twice-weekly, 90-minute group classes led by trained instructors, plus at least an additional hour of weekly practice.
Comparator
The comparison was a 3-month physical conditioning program, described as a time-equivalent control program. It included exercises and stretches designed by the study physical therapist. The parent-trial summary describes the same schedule of twice-weekly, 90-minute group classes and additional weekly practice for participants in either program.
Primary question
The primary outcome asks whether change in one-legged balance differed between the randomized groups over follow-up. Change was measured from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks, with model-generated least-squares means combining those follow-up times. The registry reports a mixed-model estimate of the between-group difference, its 95% confidence interval, and a p-value. This outcome concerns balance performance; it is distinct from the urinary-incontinence focus of the parent trial.
3. Trial Design
The registry record is for an ancillary study associated with the Lessening Incontinence With Low-impact Activity Study. It identifies a randomized, double-masked, parallel-group design and an enrollment of 240. The record lists University of California, San Francisco as sponsor, gives the status as completed, and records a start date of 2018-12-19 and primary completion date of 2022-06-30.
The parent-trial summary describes a 1:1 randomization to a 3-month yoga program or a time-equivalent physical conditioning control program. It describes recruitment from multiple locations around the San Francisco Bay area, with telephone and clinic screening, including a voiding diary to confirm incontinence frequency and clinical type. The summary describes participants as ambulatory women aged 45 years and older. It also states that eligible participants were not already participating in formal yoga or muscle stretching and strengthening programs and were willing to temporarily forgo other incontinence treatments.
Both programs are described as group interventions with twice-weekly, 90-minute classes led by trained instructors, in addition to at least an additional hour of weekly practice. The registry describes yoga postures and techniques selected by study yoga consultants, while the physical conditioning exercises and stretches were designed by the study physical therapist.
The primary outcome is a continuous measure of change in one-legged balance, reported in seconds. The outcome population is described as participants with outcomes data. The arm-specific outcome counts are 107 for yoga and 110 for physical conditioning. Those counts are not the same as the enrollment total, and the registry record does not report a full account of participant flow or explain the difference.
Although the record identifies double masking, who was masked and how masking was implemented are not reported in the registry record. Further details of allocation concealment and the randomization procedure are also not reported in the registry record.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Overall Study
| Stage | Yoga Program | Physical Conditioning Program |
|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 121 | 119 |
| COMPLETED | 101 | 109 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 20 | 10 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | Yoga Program | Physical Conditioning Program |
|---|---|---|
| COVID Related | 4 | 2 |
| Adverse Event | 2 | 0 |
| Serious Adverse Event | 0 | 1 |
| Too Busy | 3 | 1 |
| Lost to Follow-up | 1 | 2 |
| Family | 2 | 2 |
| No remote technology access | 0 | 1 |
| Withdrawal by Subject | 1 | 0 |
| Cannot tolerate intervention | 1 | 0 |
| Incomplete outcome data | 6 | 1 |
Analysis population for the primary outcome, as defined in the registry: Number of participants with outcomes data
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
| Characteristic | Unit | Yoga Program | Physical Conditioning Program | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 121 | 119 | 240 | |
| Age, Continuous | years | 62.7 (SD 8.7) | 61.4 (SD 8.8) | 62.1 (SD 8.7) |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 121 | 119 | 240 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: White | Participants | 83 | 77 | 160 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: Black | Participants | 7 | 12 | 19 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: Hispanic | Participants | 21 | 11 | 32 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: Asian | Participants | 20 | 20 | 40 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: Native Hawaiian or PI | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: American Indian | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized: More than one race | Participants | 11 | 9 | 20 |
| Region of Enrollment: United States | Participants | 121 | 119 | 240 |
| Total Urinary Incontinence Episodes | episodes per day | 3.6 (SD 2.5) | 3.2 (SD 1.9) | 3.4 (SD 2.2) |
| Stress-Type Urinary Incontinence Episodes | episodes per day | 1.4 (SD 1.8) | 1.4 (SD 1.5) | 1.4 (SD 1.6) |
| Urgency-Type Urinary Incontinence Episodes | episodes per day | 2.1 (SD 2.2) | 1.7 (SD 1.4) | 1.9 (SD 1.9) |
| Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ) | units on a scale | 100.4 (SD 78.9) | 101.6 (SD 66.4) | 101.0 (SD 72.7) |
| Urogenital distress inventory-6 score (UDI) | units on a scale | 39.1 (SD 19.1) | 28.5 (SD 19.4) | 38.8 (SD 19.2) |
| Patient Perception of BladderCondition (PPBC) | units on a scale | 3.3 (SD 1.0) | 3.4 (SD 1.0) | 3.4 (SD 1.0) |
| Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) | units on a scale | 10.1 (SD 8.8) | 10.0 (SD 8.1) | 10.0 (SD 8.4) |
| State/Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)--Trait | units on a scale | 36.1 (SD 11.2) | 36.1 (SD 10.5) | 36.1 (SD 10.9) |
| Hospital Anxiety & Depression (HADS)--Anxiety score | units on a scale | 5.3 (SD 3.8) | 5.2 (SD 3.7) | 5.3 (SD 3.8) |
| Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) score | units on a scale | 13.0 (SD 7.2) | 13.3 (SD 6.8) | 13.2 (SD 7.0) |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as Change From Baseline in One-legged Balance Test (Winsorized), measured over Repeated change from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | Least Squares Mean |
| Measure of spread | 95% Confidence Interval |
| Unit | seconds |
| Endpoint classification | Continuous Endpoint |
The primary endpoint is change from baseline in the one-legged balance test, measured in seconds. The record describes a sequence of semi-tandem, tandem, and one-legged standing tests. The one-legged balance score is the number of seconds a participant can hold that position, with a possible score from 0 to 30 seconds. If a participant cannot complete the semi-tandem and tandem stands, the one-legged test is not attempted and the one-legged score is zero.
Change is calculated as the follow-up value minus the baseline value. The reported outcome combines the 6- and 12-week follow-up time points using model-generated least-squares means. The change values were Winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentile. The result therefore concerns change in a performance measure over the stated follow-up, rather than the absolute balance score at a single visit.
Balance is a relevant functional measure in a study involving ambulatory older women, but the registry record does not state why this endpoint was selected as the primary outcome for this ancillary study. Nor does it report a threshold for a clinically important difference. The scale and scoring rules clarify what is measured; they do not, on their own, establish how much change would matter to participants.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The mixed-model analysis reports a between-group difference of 0.19, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.95 to 1.34 and p = 0.743. The outcome is measured in seconds, so the estimate and interval are interpreted on the seconds scale. The confidence interval includes zero and values on either side of zero. The result is therefore compatible with a difference favoring either group, as well as with little or no difference on this measure. The record does not establish a clear between-group difference in change in one-legged balance.
The reported arm-level least-squares means are 1.34 for the yoga program, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.52 to 2.16, and 1.53 for the physical conditioning program, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.72 to 2.35. These are model-generated summaries of change. They should not be read as raw averages or as independent estimates of the randomized contrast. The mixed-model comparison is the reported analysis for the between-group question.
The p-value of 0.743 is not a measure of the probability that either program is effective, nor does it show that the groups are equivalent. A non-small p-value can occur when an estimate is close to zero, when the data are imprecise, or both. The confidence interval communicates the range of differences compatible with the estimate under the model; its breadth matters when judging what the result can resolve.
The endpoint was Winsorized, and the mixed-model result combines measurements at 6 and 12 weeks. The reported contrast consequently reflects that stated analysis rather than a simple comparison of unadjusted participant-level changes at one time point. Model details beyond the method label, including covariates and handling of within-participant correlation, are not reported in the registry record.
No clinical-importance threshold is reported, so the interval cannot be classified as excluding or including a meaningful difference. In statistical terms, the posted result does not provide strong evidence of a difference between the groups for this endpoint. It also does not rule out differences that may be important, or establish that the programs have the same effect. The finding is specific to the balance outcome, its scoring and processing, the stated follow-up, and the participants with outcomes data.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
The registry identifies the primary outcome as continuous and reports least-squares means with 95% confidence intervals. A continuous outcome takes values on a scale rather than placing each participant into a category. Here, the scale is seconds spent holding the one-legged balance position, and the analyzed endpoint is change from baseline.
What does a least-squares mean represent?
In general, a least-squares mean is a model-based estimate of an outcome mean. It is calculated from a statistical model rather than being simply the arithmetic average of the observed values. The registry reports arm-specific least-squares means of 1.34 for yoga and 1.53 for physical conditioning. It labels the between-group parameter as a model-based least-squares mean difference. The model specification, including any covariates or adjustment factors, is not reported in the registry record, so the degree and nature of adjustment cannot be determined from the method label alone.
How should the confidence interval be read?
In general, a confidence interval describes the uncertainty around an estimated quantity under the assumptions of the analysis. The reported 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference runs from -0.95 to 1.34. Because this interval includes zero, the posted estimate does not sharply distinguish a difference in one direction from a difference in the other direction. The interval also conveys uncertainty about the size of the contrast, not just its direction. The registry does not report a clinically important difference for this balance measure, so the interval cannot be compared with such a threshold.
What does the mixed-model label tell the reader?
The registry names the reported approach as a mixed models analysis and describes the outcome as repeated change from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks. In general, mixed models can account for the relationship among repeated measurements from the same participant while estimating group patterns. The specific model structure, covariance assumptions, time terms, covariates, and method for handling missing observations are not reported in the registry record. The label should therefore not be taken as enough information to reconstruct the analysis.
Why were change values Winsorized?
The record states that change values were Winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentile. In general, Winsorization limits the influence of extreme observations by replacing values beyond selected cut points with values at the cut points, rather than deleting those observations. This can reduce the leverage of unusually high or low values, but it changes the analyzed data relative to an analysis of unmodified changes. The registry does not report the cut-point values, the number of observations affected, or results from an analysis without Winsorization.
How does the endpoint's scoring affect interpretation?
The one-legged score ranges from 0 to 30 seconds. The test is part of a sequence: if a participant cannot complete the semi-tandem and tandem positions, the one-legged test is not attempted and the score is zero. The analysis concerns change in this score, so interpretation depends on both the scoring rule and the handling of change values. A zero can represent the specified test rule rather than an observed one-legged hold of zero seconds. The registry does not report how many participants received zero for this reason.
The primary outcome population is described as the number of participants with outcomes data. Arm-level counts are 107 and 110. In general, restricting an outcome analysis to participants with available outcomes can affect the estimate if outcome availability is related to group or outcome values. The record does not state whether all randomized participants contributed data, how missing outcome values were handled, or whether an intention-to-treat analysis was used.
The result should be read as a model-based comparison of the specified processed change outcome, not as a direct measure of every aspect of balance, mobility, urinary incontinence, or daily function. The record reports a p-value of 0.743 alongside the estimate and interval. In general, the p-value assesses how compatible the observed data are with a specified null hypothesis under the analysis assumptions; it does not quantify the size or clinical importance of an effect. The confidence interval and endpoint definition are needed to understand the estimate's scale and uncertainty.
10. Analyses Reported by the Sponsor
| Method | Estimate | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed Models Analysis | Model based LS mean difference 0.19 | -0.95 to 1.34 | 0.743 |
The registry reports the sponsor's primary comparison as a mixed models analysis, with a model-based least-squares mean difference of 0.19, a 95% confidence interval from -0.95 to 1.34, and p = 0.743. The analysis is the principal posted estimate for the randomized comparison. The record does not identify a conflict between the sponsor analysis and a recalculation.
A separate unadjusted recalculation for the two-arm continuous comparison is not reported in the registry record; the record indicates values were missing or not estimable for such a comparison. The arm-specific least-squares means and their confidence intervals are not enough to reconstruct the sponsor's model or its standard error. They also do not justify replacing the reported mixed-model contrast with a newly derived subtraction.
Because no conflicting recalculated result is reported, the sponsor's mixed-model analysis is the relevant posted result to interpret. The estimate is close to zero relative to its interval, and the interval includes differences in either direction. The registry does not report enough model detail to reproduce the analysis independently or assess whether alternative specifications would materially change the result.
11. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
The registry lists 10 outcome measures and 10 analyses, and names 7 secondary outcomes. The secondary outcomes concern perceived stress, depression, trait anxiety, anxiety, wake after sleep onset, sleep quality, and total sleep time. The listed primary outcome concerns one-legged balance. The record does not explain how the outcome and analysis totals relate to the named outcomes, nor does it identify any additional endpoints beyond the outcomes described in its record.
When multiple outcomes or analyses are examined, the chance of at least one apparently notable result can increase. In general, multiplicity procedures may adjust thresholds or estimates to account for a family of tests. Whether the study used a prespecified hierarchy, adjusted p-values, or another approach is not reported in the registry record. No multiplicity adjustment is described for the primary result, and the record does not state whether the secondary analyses were confirmatory or exploratory. The primary p-value should therefore be read as the reported result, without assuming an unreported adjustment or analysis hierarchy.
The record gives the primary outcome population as participants with outcomes data and reports arm counts of 107 and 110. Missing-data reasons, the timing and amount of missingness, and the methods used to handle missing values are not reported in the registry record. It is also not reported whether the analysis included all randomized participants, whether participants were analyzed according to assigned group, or whether any sensitivity analyses addressed missing outcomes.
The registry describes repeated change to 6 and 12 weeks and a mixed-model analysis, but the detailed analysis population and model specification are not reported. It is not reported whether there was a prespecified analysis plan, whether any interim analyses were conducted, or how multiplicity across repeated measurements was handled. These omissions limit assessment of the analysis choices; they do not change the numerical result that is posted.
12. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yoga Program | 1 | 121 | 0.8% |
| Physical Conditioning Program | 1 | 119 | 0.8% |
Deaths
| Arm | Deaths (participants affected of at risk) |
|---|---|
| Yoga Program | 0 of 121 |
| Physical Conditioning Program | 0 of 119 |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 0% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| Yoga Program | 37 of 121 |
| Physical Conditioning Program | 43 of 119 |
Most frequent serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Yoga Program | Physical Conditioning Program |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atrial Fibrillation | Cardiac disorders | 0 of 121 | 1 of 119 |
| High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma Burkitt-Like Lymphoma Nos | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | 1 of 121 | 0 of 119 |
Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Yoga Program | Physical Conditioning Program |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knee Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 5 of 121 | 3 of 119 |
| Shoulder Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 4 of 121 | 4 of 119 |
| Upper Respiratory Infection | Infections and infestations | 4 of 121 | 2 of 119 |
| Food Poisoning | Gastrointestinal disorders | 2 of 121 | 2 of 119 |
| Back Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 1 of 121 | 3 of 119 |
| Knee Swelling | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 4 of 121 | 0 of 119 |
| Bronchitis | Infections and infestations | 1 of 121 | 2 of 119 |
| Low Back Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 1 of 121 | 2 of 119 |
| Coronavirus Infection | Infections and infestations | 1 of 121 | 1 of 119 |
| Lower Urinary Tract Infection | Infections and infestations | 0 of 121 | 2 of 119 |
Serious events with the highest arm-level rate: atrial fibrillation (0.8%), high grade b-cell lymphoma burkitt-like lymphoma nos (0.8%).
The adverse-event record gives separate at-risk counts for the two program groups. For serious adverse events, 1 of 121 participants in the yoga group and 1 of 119 in the physical conditioning group are listed as affected. The record reports zero deaths in each group. The top serious-event terms listed are atrial fibrillation and high grade B-cell lymphoma Burkitt-like lymphoma nos, each recorded as 0.8%.
The record also lists other adverse events in 37 of 121 participants in the yoga group and 43 of 119 in the physical conditioning group. It does not define the “other” category in the information reported. These counts use the adverse-event at-risk populations and should not be confused with the primary outcome counts of 107 and 110, which refer to participants with outcome data.
These figures describe events recorded in the registry; they do not establish that a program caused or prevented an event. The record does not report event timing, severity details beyond the serious-event classification, relatedness assessments, or a fuller account of how events were collected. The serious-event counts are small, so the posted figures alone do not support precise comparative safety conclusions.
13. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The primary result is a model-based comparison of change in one-legged balance over the stated follow-up. The estimate is 0.19, and its 95% confidence interval extends from -0.95 to 1.34. The p-value is 0.743. Taken together, these statistics do not show a clear difference between the yoga and physical conditioning groups on this outcome.
That conclusion is narrower than saying the groups are equivalent. The confidence interval includes zero but also includes nonzero differences in either direction. Without a reported threshold for a clinically important difference, it is not possible to determine whether all differences compatible with the data would be unimportant. Nor does the result show that either program has no effect relative to no program: the comparison is between two active group programs, not against an untreated group.
The endpoint is a processed change score, Winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentile, and summarized across 6- and 12-week follow-up using a mixed model. This result does not answer every question about urinary incontinence, balance at other times, or the broader effects of either program. The registry record does not report a direct primary result for urinary-incontinence frequency in this ancillary study.
The posted outcome counts indicate that 107 yoga participants and 110 physical conditioning participants contributed outcome data. The record does not provide enough information to assess the reasons for missing outcomes or their possible influence. Interpretation should therefore remain tied to the analyzed population and the reported method rather than assuming complete follow-up or a particular missing-data strategy.
In short, the posted evidence is inconclusive about a between-group difference in this balance endpoint. It neither establishes a difference nor rules out all potentially meaningful differences. It also cannot be generalized automatically to other outcomes, populations, or comparisons not described by the registry record.
14. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
This study illustrates why an estimate, confidence interval, and p-value should be read together. The reported difference of 0.19 may look close to zero, but the interval from -0.95 to 1.34 shows that the estimate is uncertain across values on either side of zero. The p-value of 0.743 is consistent with the absence of a clearly resolved group contrast, but it does not establish equivalence.
The endpoint also demonstrates how outcome construction shapes a result. The measure is a seconds-based balance score, converted to change from baseline, processed by Winsorization, and combined across 6- and 12-week observations in a model. A statistical result cannot be interpreted well without understanding those choices. The score's rule for participants unable to complete earlier balance positions is another part of the endpoint definition.
The comparison is between yoga and physical conditioning, both structured group programs. The registry's parent-trial summary describes these as time-equivalent programs, so the primary comparison is not a contrast with no intervention. This is important when defining what the estimate answers: it concerns the difference between the two assigned programs on the specified balance measure.
Finally, the record distinguishes the outcome population from the enrollment total and reports separate at-risk counts for adverse events. Keeping those denominators separate is essential. The available information allows a careful reading of the posted result, while missing details about the analysis plan, missing outcomes, and model specification constrain deeper appraisal.
15. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
The registry record does not report the detailed statistical model, including its covariates, covariance structure, or how the repeated observations were represented. It identifies a mixed models analysis and a combined 6- and 12-week result, but those labels do not make the analysis reproducible. The record also does not report whether the analysis plan was prespecified or whether the endpoint's model and processing decisions were selected before outcome data were examined.
The primary outcome counts are 107 and 110, while the adverse-event at-risk counts are 121 and 119. The registry does not explain the differences between these populations, provide a participant flow account, or report reasons for missing primary outcome data. Missing-data methods and sensitivity analyses are not reported, limiting assessment of whether the available outcome data represent the randomized groups.
The endpoint uses Winsorized change values and combines repeated follow-up observations. The cut-point values and the number of observations affected are not reported. No unmodified analysis is posted in the registry record of this record, and the record does not explain the choice of Winsorization. The definition of the score includes a zero assignment when earlier positions cannot be completed, but the frequency of that scoring situation is not reported.
The record names 10 outcome measures and analyses but lists 7 secondary outcomes. It does not explain the relationship among those counts, describe a multiplicity strategy, or report whether secondary analyses were exploratory. It also does not report a clinically important difference for the balance outcome. Consequently, the practical importance of differences compatible with the confidence interval cannot be judged from this record alone.
Other details that are not reported in the registry record include masking procedures, allocation concealment, protocol deviations, and any interim analyses. These gaps limit independent evaluation but do not negate the posted mixed-model estimate or its uncertainty.
16. Related Tutorials
17. Related Statistical Calculators
18. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: Ancillary Study of the Lessening Incontinence With Low-impact Activity Study — NCT04776720.
- Registry record last updated 2023-09-07; status last verified 2023-08.
- Results first posted 2023-09-07.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
19. Record Summary
The registry record concerns an ancillary study of the Lessening Incontinence With Low-impact Activity Study. It describes a randomized, double-masked, parallel-group trial with enrollment of 240 and a completed status. The intervention comparison is a 3-month yoga program versus a 3-month physical conditioning program.
The primary outcome is change from baseline in one-legged balance, measured in seconds, with repeated change to 6 and 12 weeks summarized using model-generated least-squares means. The mixed-model between-group estimate is 0.19, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.95 to 1.34 and p = 0.743. The outcome-data counts are 107 for yoga and 110 for physical conditioning.
The result does not establish a clear group difference in this endpoint. Important details about model specification, missing data, multiplicity, and the clinical importance threshold are not reported in the registry record.