| Title |
Evidence-based hydro- and balneotherapy in Hungary—a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Biometeorology, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00484-013-0667-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Bender, G. Bálint, Z. Prohászka, P. Géher, I. K. Tefner |
| Abstract |
Balneotherapy is appreciated as a traditional treatment modality in medicine. Hungary is rich in thermal mineral waters. Balneotherapy has been in extensive use for centuries and its effects have been studied in detail. Here, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials conducted with Hungarian thermal mineral waters, the findings of which have been published by Hungarian authors in English. The 122 studies identified in different databases include 18 clinical trials. Five of these evaluated the effect of hydro- and balneotherapy on chronic low back pain, four on osteoarthritis of the knee, and two on osteoarthritis of the hand. One of the remaining seven trials evaluated balneotherapy in chronic inflammatory pelvic diseases, while six studies explored its effect on various laboratory parameters. Out of the 18 studies, 9 met the predefined criteria for meta-analysis. The results confirmed the beneficial effect of balneotherapy on pain with weight bearing and at rest in patients with degenerative joint and spinal diseases. A similar effect has been found in chronic pelvic inflammatory disease. The review also revealed that balneotherapy has some beneficial effects on antioxidant status, and on metabolic and inflammatory parameters. Based on the results, we conclude that balneotherapy with Hungarian thermal-mineral waters is an effective remedy for lower back pain, as well as for knee and hand osteoarthritis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 12% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 23% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 53 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,258,111
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Biometeorology
#698
of 1,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,332
of 210,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Biometeorology
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.