Clinical efficacy of medical hydrology: an umbrella review
Key Findings
- Umbrella review of clinical efficacy of medical hydrology
- Confirms balneotherapy efficacy for musculoskeletal and skin conditions
- Grades evidence quality across different conditions and interventions
An umbrella review — a review of systematic reviews — representing the highest level of evidence synthesis in the hierarchy. Published in the International Journal of Biometeorology, Antonelli and Donelli surveyed the body of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on medical hydrology to assess where the evidence is consistent, where it is contested, and where it is absent.
What an Umbrella Review Adds
Systematic reviews assess primary trials. An umbrella review assesses systematic reviews — asking not “what did this trial find?” but “what does the collection of systematic reviews agree on?” This approach is particularly valuable in balneotherapy, where the evidence base is fragmented across specialties (rheumatology, dermatology, rehabilitation), countries, and peloid types. An umbrella review can identify consistent findings across all of these variations.
What It Found
The review confirms balneotherapy efficacy for musculoskeletal conditions — the area with the strongest and most consistent evidence across systematic reviews — and for skin conditions including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Evidence quality grades vary by condition and outcome measure. The review also identifies areas where evidence is limited or inconsistent, providing an honest map of the field’s current knowledge.
Significance for This Site
Together with Kamioka 2020, Antonelli 2021 is the most authoritative reference for the overall claim that balneotherapy has established clinical efficacy. When pages on this site characterise the evidence as “strong” or “moderate” for a given condition, the basis for that grading ultimately traces back to umbrella reviews like this one.