| Title |
Anthroposophical medicine: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Medica Austriaca, February 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf03040749 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edzard Ernst |
| Abstract |
The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and critically evaluate all randomised clinical trials testing the effectiveness of the whole system of anthroposophical medicine either as a sole or as an adjunctive form of treatment. Seven independent literature searches were conducted to locate all such studies. Trials of single remedies within the wider anthroposophical approach were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. Unfortunately not a single study was located which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. It was therefore concluded that, at present, the question whether the anthroposophical concept of healing generates more good than harm cannot be answered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 4 | 15% |
| France | 2 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Cabo Verde | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 69% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Peru | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 27% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 33% |
| Psychology | 5 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 09 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,449,453
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Acta Medica Austriaca
#37
of 967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,643
of 146,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Medica Austriaca
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 146,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.