ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Challenges of blinding in clinical balneology trials: a scoping review.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Climatotherapy in marine and dead sea environments for musculoskeletal and rheumatologic conditions: a systematic review of effectiveness and safety.International journal of biometeorology · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence-based balneotherapy in Hungary. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the Hungarian clinical trials.International journal of biometeorology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn evidence-based medicine, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are considered the 'gold standard' of study design. Efforts must be made to advance evidence-based balneology in a similar manner. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the intervention types of experimental and control groups used in clinical balneology trials to map the proportion of open-label, single- and double-blind studies.
methodsEligibility criteria: i) prospective interventional clinical trial, ii) focused on the therapeutic effect of natural medicinal and mineral water, iii) administered head-out immersion, iv) compared with any other intervention or no treatment, v) in adult patients, and vi) with no restrictions on study design or language. Two authors independently searched the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases for trials published in any language between 1990 and 12 February 2025.
resultsThe 109, included trials were categorized into eight groups according to the treatment of the experimental and control groups and the use of blinding. Studies in the lower categories (1, 2, 3) completely lack blinding. In categories 4a-b-c, tap water control was used in parallel with medicinal/mineral water. Category 4c was the first category where the 'gold standard' of evidence-based medicine was implemented. Finally, in the last two categories (5a-b), validated placebo water was used. Low-category papers constituted the largest group, accounting for 74% of the total number of publications. From 1990 to the present, only 11% of publications chose the double-blind setup. Most higher category papers were published in Hungary. Over time, there has been no clear improvement in study design.
conclusionsFuture balneological research should prioritize rigorous experimental designs, particularly by incorporating validated placebo water and double-blind methodologies. Without these improvements, the ability to draw reliable conclusions about the true efficacy of balneotherapy remains limited. REGISTRATION: The scoping review protocol was registered prospectively in OSF registries (Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF . IO/XHS4B, internet Archive link https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-xhs4b-v1 , Date registered June 26, 2022).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.