Clinical effects of Kneipp hydrotherapy: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hydrotherapy is a traditional prevention and treatment strategy. This study's aim is to systematically review all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating clinical effects of hydrotherapy according to Kneipp which is characterised by cold water applications. METHODS: RCTs on disease therapy and prevention with Kneipp hydrotherapy were included. Study participants were patients and healthy volunteers of all age groups. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Central, CAMbase, and opengrey.eu were systematically searched through April 2021 without language restrictions and updated by searching PubMed until April 6th 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool version 1.ResultsTwenty RCTs (N=4247) were included. Due to high heterogeneity of the RCTs, no meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias was rated as unclear in most of the domains. Of 132 comparisons, 46 showed significant positive effects in favour of hydrotherapy on chronic venous insufficiency, menopausal symptoms, fever, cognition, emotional function and sickness absenteeism. However, 81 comparisons showed no differences between groups and 5 were in favour of the respective control group. Only half of the studies reported safety issues. CONCLUSION: Although RCTs on Kneipp hydrotherapy seem to show positive effects in some conditions and outcomes, it remains difficult to ascertain treatment effects due to the high risk of bias and heterogeneity of most of the considered studies. Further high-quality RCTs on Kneipp hydrotherapy are urgently warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021237611.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".