fever: views in anthroposophic medicine and their scientific validity

Clicks: 64
ID: 243550
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #850 of 899 articles by views in ACS applied materials & interfaces

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 899 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Objective. To conduct a scoping review to characterize how fever is viewed in anthroposophic medicine (AM) and discuss the scientific validity of these views. Methods. Systematic searches were run in Medline, Embase, CAMbase, and Google Scholar. Material from anthroposophic medical textbooks and articles was also used. Data was extracted and interpreted. Results. Most of the anthroposophic literature on this subject is in the German language. Anthroposophic physicians hold a beneficial view on fever, rarely suppress fever with antipyretics, and often use complementary means of alleviating discomfort. In AM, fever is considered to have the following potential benefits: promoting more complete recovery; preventing infection recurrences and atopic diseases; providing a unique opportunity for caregivers to provide loving care; facilitating individual development and resilience; protecting against cancer and boosting the anticancer effects of mistletoe products. These views are discussed with regard to the available scientific data. Conclusion. AM postulates that fever can be of short-term and long-term benefit in several ways; many of these opinions have become evidence-based (though still often not practiced) while others still need empirical studies to be validated, refuted, or modified.
Reference Key
martin2016evidence-basedfever: Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;David D. Martin
Journal ACS applied materials & interfaces
Year 2016
DOI
10.1155/2016/3642659
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.