ReviewWiener klinische Wochenschrift2026
Systematic review of clinical evidence for Kneipp medicine.
Review in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveKneipp medicine, a naturopathic system based on hydrotherapy, exercise, nutrition, phytotherapy and lifestyle regulation, has a long history but lacks a comprehensive systematic review of its clinical efficacy from randomized controlled trials (RCT). This review aimed to synthesize existing RCT evidence to determine the efficacy of Kneipp medicine interventions compared to control conditions on mortality, morbidity and quality of life.
methodsAn initial information search involved inquiries to Kneipp institutions and practitioners. Subsequently, a systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and EMBASE, adhering to PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251061013). Inclusion criteria focused on human RCTs evaluating Kneipp interventions with a comparator group and reporting on mortality, morbidity or quality of life. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0) were performed by independent reviewers.
resultsThe search yielded 77 records but only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. This single included study, albeit at a low number of only 30 patients, was an explorative feasibility trial. The systematic review revealed a significant lack of high-quality RCTs evaluating Kneipp therapy as a whole concept or its individual pillars. Identified studies often suffered from methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of blinding. Institutional inquiries provided insights into teaching modalities and promotional activities but lacked robust scientific documentation.
conclusionDespite its historical and cultural significance, Kneipp medicine lacks robust scientific validation from high-quality RCTs to substantiate its medical efficacy as a comprehensive therapeutic approach. Consequently, its contemporary relevance appears to be primarily rooted in traditional, wellness and commercial contexts rather than evidence-based healthcare and medical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42373873What 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.