The role of mineral elements and other chemical compounds used in balneology: data from double-blind randomized clinical trials
Key Findings
- Systematic review of 27 double-blind RCTs testing mineral water, mud, or peloid against tap water or a mineral-depleted control, isolating the specific contribution of chemical/mineral composition from heat or general spa effects
- 20 of the 27 trials covered rheumatology (1,118 patients: knee OA, hand OA, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis)
- Mineral water/mud treatments produced better and longer-lasting improvements in pain, function, and quality of life than non-mineral control treatments across all rheumatology indications studied
- Only 4 of 20 rheumatology trials had high internal validity; heterogeneity in protocols and outcome measures precluded formal meta-analysis
- Notable included trial (Flusser et al. 2002): mineral-rich mud compresses outperformed mineral-depleted mud compresses for low back pain, directly isolating the mineral contribution from the mud's thermal/physical properties
A systematic review specifically designed to isolate the “mineral component” of balneotherapy, restricted to double-blind RCTs that compare mineral-rich water or mud against a mineral-depleted control — a design most balneotherapy trials cannot achieve, since they rarely separate chemical effects from heat or general spa-environment effects. Across knee and hand osteoarthritis, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoporosis, mineral-rich treatments consistently outperformed non-mineral controls, though trial quality was uneven and heterogeneity prevented a formal meta-analysis. Not peat-specific — it covers mineral waters and peloids broadly — but it is the strongest available evidence design for the general principle that mineral content, not just heat, drives balneotherapy’s clinical effect.
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.
Systematic review of 27 double-blind RCTs (not peat-specific): mineral-rich water/mud consistently outperformed mineral-depleted/tap-water controls for knee OA, hand OA, chronic low back pain, RA, and osteoporosis, isolating the mineral-chemical contribution from heat/mechanical effects — see mineral-delivery mechanism
Systematic review of 27 double-blind RCTs (1118 patients) comparing mineral water/mud/peloid vs. tap-water or mineral-depleted controls: mineral treatment produced better, longer-lasting improvements in pain and function for knee/hand OA, chronic low back pain, RA, and osteoporosis; not peat-specific (general balneotherapy)