ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2009
Outcome of anthroposophic medication therapy in chronic disease: a 12-month prospective cohort study.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anthroposophic Medicinal Products: A Literature Review of Features, Similarities and Differences to Conventional Medicinal Products, Scientific and Regulatory Assessment.Global advances in health and medicine · 2022Article
- Overview of the Publications From the Anthroposophic Medicine Outcomes Study (AMOS): A Whole System Evaluation Study.Global advances in health and medicine · 2014Review
- Anthroposophic medicine: an integrative medical system originating in europe.Global advances in health and medicine · 2013Article
- Inpatient treatment of community-acquired pneumonias with integrative medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2013Article
- Predictors of outcome after 6 and 12 months following anthroposophic therapy for adult outpatients with chronic disease: a secondary analysis from a prospective observational study.BMC research notes · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnthroposophic medications (AMED) are prescribed in 56 countries.
objectiveTo study clinical outcomes in patients prescribed AMED for chronic disease.
designProspective cohort study.
setting110 medical practices in Germany.
participants665 consecutive outpatients aged 1-71 years, prescribed AMED for mental, respiratory, musculoskeletal, neurological, genitourinary, and other chronic diseases. MAIN OUTCOMES: Disease and Symptom Scores (physicians' and patients' assessment, 0-10) and SF-36.
resultsDuring the first six months, an average of 1.5 AMED per patient was used, in total 652 different AMED. Origin of AMED was mineral (8.0% of 652 AMED), botanical (39.0%), zoological (7.2%), chemically defined (13.0%), and mixed (33.0%). From baseline to six-month-follow-up, all outcomes improved significantly: Disease Score improved by mean 3.15 points (95% confidence interval 2.97-3.34, p < 0.001), Symptom Score by 2.43 points (2.23-2.63, p < 0.001), SF-36 Physical Component Summary by 3.04 points (2.16-3.91, p < 0.001), and SF-36 Mental Component Summary by 5.75 points (4.59-6.92, p < 0.001). All improvements were maintained at 12-month follow-up. Improvements were similar in adult men and women, in children, and in patients not using adjunctive therapies.
conclusionOutpatients using AMED for chronic disease had long-term reduction of disease severity and improvement of quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19920891PMC2761176W2150747930What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.