Skip to content
Cosmetic Peat
Association
← Research library

The efficacy of balneotherapy and mud-pack therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis

rct Grade B 2007 n=80
Authors: Evcik, D., Kavuncu, V., Yeter, A., Yigit, I.
Journal: Joint Bone Spine 74 : 60-65
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.03.009
View original study →

Key Findings

  • 80 patients with knee OA randomized to 3 groups: balneotherapy (n=25), mud-pack (n=29), hot-pack control (n=26)
  • All treatments: 20 min, once daily, 5×/week, 10 sessions total
  • Pain assessed by VAS and WOMAC pain scale
  • Functional capacity assessed by WOMAC functional capacity and global index
  • Quality of life assessed by Nottingham Health Profile (NHP)
  • Both balneotherapy and mud-pack groups showed significant improvement over hot-pack control

One of the few trials that tests balneotherapy and mud-pack therapy side by side against the same control. Published in Joint Bone Spine, this three-arm RCT is valuable precisely because it can distinguish the contribution of immersion (balneotherapy) from topical application (mud-pack) — two delivery routes that are often grouped together in reviews but deliver peat bioactives differently.

Study Design

80 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized into three groups:

  • Balneotherapy (n=25) — immersion in peloid bath
  • Mud-pack (n=29) — topical peat pack applied to the knee
  • Hot-pack control (n=26) — heat only, no bioactive content

All groups received 10 sessions, 20 minutes each, once daily, 5 days per week over 2 weeks. This matched protocol isolates the effect of the peat itself rather than differences in treatment intensity.

What Was Measured

  • Pain: VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) and WOMAC pain subscale
  • Function: WOMAC functional capacity and global index
  • Quality of life: Nottingham Health Profile (NHP)

Using three independent instruments for pain and function strengthens confidence in the findings.

Key Findings

Both the balneotherapy group and the mud-pack group showed significant improvements in pain, functional capacity, and quality of life compared to the hot-pack control group. Neither peat-based treatment was clearly superior to the other — both outperformed heat alone. This is the central result: whether you immerse a joint in peat or apply a peat pack topically, the outcome in knee OA exceeds what heat alone achieves.

What It Adds to the Evidence Base

Most mud/peat therapy trials test a single delivery method. This trial’s three-arm design confirms that the chemical benefit of peat is not delivery-route-specific — it manifests whether peat contacts the skin through immersion or direct pack application. That finding is relevant to product development: topical peat products can legitimately claim the same mechanism as clinical balneotherapy, even if the intensity differs.

Where this source is used on this site

Each page below cites this paper as evidence for a specific claim. The note shows what the page draws from it.

RCT: 80 patients, balneotherapy and mud-pack both superior to hot-pack for knee OA

RCT: mud-pack (20 min, 10 sessions) significantly improved WOMAC scores in knee OA

Application Peat Body Wraps

RCT: mud-pack therapy improved WOMAC scores in knee OA

Application Peat Poultices

RCT: mud-pack therapy (20 min, 10 sessions) improved pain/function in knee OA vs hot-pack

knee-OARCTbalneotherapymud-packWOMACVASquality-of-life