↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Balneotherapy for osteoarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

5 X users
2 Wikipedia pages


95 Dimensions

Readers on

180 Mendeley
Balneotherapy for osteoarthritis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006864
Pubmed ID

Arianne P Verhagen, Sita MA Bierma‐Zeinstra, Maarten Boers, Jefferson Rosa Cardoso, Johan Lambeck, Rob de Bie, Henrica CW de Vet


Balneotherapy (or spa therapy, mineral baths) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain and as a consequence to relieve patients' suffering and make them feel well. In this update we included one extra study. To assess the effectiveness of balneotherapy for patients with osteoarthritis (OA). We searched the following databases up to October 2006: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field database, PEDro, CENTRAL (Issue 3, 2006) and performed reference checking and communicated with authors to retrieve eligible studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing balneotherapy with any intervention or no intervention. At least 90% of the patient population had to be diagnosed with OA. Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. In the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data we refrained from statistical pooling. Seven trials (498 patients) were included in this review. Two studies compared spa-treatment with no treatment. One study evaluated baths as an add-on treatment to home exercises and another compared thermal water from Cserkeszölö with tap water (placebo). Three studies evaluated sulphur or Dead Sea baths with no treatment or mineral baths with tap water baths or no treatment. Only one of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and two studies provided data to perform an intention-to-treat analysis ourselves. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by one trial. We found: silver level evidence concerning the beneficial effects on pain, quality of life and analgesic intake of mineral baths compared to no treatment (SMD between 1.82 and 0.34). a statistically significant difference in pain and function of Dead Sea + sulphur versus no treatment, only at end of treatment (WMD 5.7, 95%CI 3.3 to 8.1), but not at 3 month follow-up (WMD 2.6, 95%CI -1.1 to 6.3). no statistically significant differences in pain or function at one or three months of Dead Sea baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.5, 95%CI -0.6 to 1.6) or at one or three months of sulphur baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.4, 95%CI -0.9 to 1.7). Adverse events were not measured in the included trials. We found silver level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) concerning the beneficial effects of mineral baths compared to no treatment. Of all other balneological treatments no clear effects were found. However, the scientific evidence is weak because of the poor methodological quality and the absence of an adequate statistical analysis and data presentation. Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 174 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 61 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Sports and Recreations 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 61 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 March 2023.
All research outputs
of 26,151,587 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 89,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,151,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 89,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.