The Effect of Integrative Naturopathic Oncology Including Modulated Electrohyperthermia on Survival Outcome among Glioblastoma Multiforme Patients: A Retrospective Study.
Sara Izadi-Najafabadi et al. (2025) · Integrative cancer therapies
This retrospective study compared 67 people with grade IV glioblastoma (GBM), a fast-growing brain cancer, who received integrative naturopathic care at a Canadian clinic with 243 matched patients from the U.S. SEER cancer registry. The clinic's approach added modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT), a radiofrequency treatment that heats tumour tissue, plus high-dose intravenous vitamin C, supplements, acupuncture and diet counselling, on top of standard surgery, radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. Standard care for GBM extends median survival only to about 14.6 months, so the authors looked for any signal that the extra treatments might add survival time.
Patients had at least six mEHT sessions between 2010 and 2024, with a median of 13 sessions of up to 60 minutes each at powers rising from 50 to 140 watts. Controls were matched on age, sex, diagnosis year and whether they had surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. To avoid giving the clinic group credit for the months before they arrived, survival was counted from the start of clinic treatment (or the matched patient's start date for controls) and compared with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression.
Median survival from that starting point was 15 months with integrative care versus 11 months in controls, and the hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI 0.53-1.00, p = 0.05) sat right at the edge of statistical significance (a 28% lower hazard of death). The difference was concentrated in people who started within 120 days of diagnosis (hazard ratio 0.52, p = 0.006, roughly half the hazard of death) and in those under 50 (0.51, p = 0.009); starting later or being 50 or older showed no difference (0.98 and 0.96). Treatment began a median of 124 days after diagnosis, so these patients had already survived that long. The authors saw no seizures or other side effects. Those subgroup analyses were exploratory, unadjusted for multiple testing, and the matched groups still differed in how many had chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
Because treatment was not randomised and many factors that shape GBM survival, such as tumour genetics, extent of surgery and general fitness, were unavailable, the results cannot show that the integrative care caused the longer survival. Clinic patients also paid for their own care, which may favour those with more resources, and the dose and timing of mEHT varied between individuals. The authors describe the findings as hypothesis-generating, a signal rather than an effect estimate, and call for randomised trials.
A Prospective Observational Study of a 2-Week Integrative Inpatient Therapy on Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome.
Sandra Utz et al. (2025) · Biomedicines
This prospective observational study followed 101 adults with long-standing fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) through a two-week integrative inpatient stay in Bamberg, Germany, with no control group. FMS is a chronic condition marked by widespread pain, fatigue, sleep problems, anxiety and depression, and the authors describe it as the third most common rheumatic disease. The program was built on classical European naturopathy: water-based therapies and heat, exercise, plant-based nutrition or medical fasting, herbal remedies and mind-body practices such as relaxation. The question was whether such a combined approach would ease symptoms at discharge and six months later.
Of 134 patients who joined (127 women, ages 22 to 80), 101 returned questionnaires on admission, at discharge and after six months. During the stay they took part in meditative movement, physical therapy, hydrotherapy, lectures and cooking classes, and some had whole-body heat sessions or a 5-day fast on under 300 kcal a day. Pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, stress and quality of life were measured with standard questionnaires (such as the HADS for anxiety and depression and the MFI-20 for fatigue) and compared over time with repeated-measures statistics.
Overall pain intensity dropped from 71.5 to 63.0 on a 0-100 scale at discharge (a moderate effect, dz = 0.62) and was still lower at six months (64.4). Current pain fell sharply during the stay (6.56 to 4.37 out of 10) but crept back to 5.96 at six months. Fatigue improved from 71.1 to 63.3 and then partly returned (68.0). Anxiety and depression scores each fell by roughly 2.5 points at discharge and were still lower than baseline at six months. Stress and feelings of helplessness improved mainly after discharge, and mental quality of life rose between discharge and follow-up. Patients who fasted kept their pain gains at six months (p = 0.006), whereas non-fasters did not (p = 0.062), although this difference was borderline (interaction p = 0.050) and not randomised.
The results come from an uncontrolled, single-centre sample in which a quarter of the participants did not complete the six-month questionnaire, so the changes cannot be attributed to the program alone. More than half the patients reported obstacles to continuing the methods at home, such as lack of time and exhaustion. The authors call for randomised trials with long-term follow-up and propose a follow-up day-clinic programme to help consolidate the learned self-management skills and everyday routines.
Effectiveness and Safety of Mud Therapy (Pelotherapy) for Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Suhas Balakrishna et al. (2026) · Journal of lifestyle medicine
This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 33 controlled studies with 2,651 adults to ask whether pelotherapy, the application of mineral-rich mud, peat or clay as packs, wraps or full baths, eases musculoskeletal disorders. These include osteoarthritis (joint cartilage wear), rheumatoid arthritis (an autoimmune joint disease), fibromyalgia (widespread pain) and chronic low back pain. Pelotherapy is a traditional naturopathic practice used in spas, balneological centres and clinics in at least 40 countries, and the authors set out to test it against modern standards: pre-registration, risk-of-bias rating and GRADE certainty scoring.
The team searched eight databases and trial registers up to April 2026. Included trials enrolled adults with a confirmed musculoskeletal diagnosis, applied mud as the main treatment for 10 to 21 sessions over two to three weeks, and compared it with sham treatment, usual care, waiting lists or nothing. Pain was mostly rated on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale or a 0-10 numeric scale, and function on questionnaires such as the WOMAC. Two reviewers worked independently and combined results with random-effects statistics.
Pain dropped clearly after mud treatment (standardised mean difference -0.74, a moderate-to-large effect, roughly 18.5 mm on the 100 mm scale and above the 15 mm threshold for a meaningful change). The effect was still present at 3 months (-0.61) and at 6 months (-0.49, low certainty). Physical function (-0.69) and quality of life (+0.58 on SF-36) improved as well, with osteoarthritis trials using the WOMAC at -0.82 and rheumatoid arthritis trials using the HAQ at -0.58. Morning stiffness (-0.52) and C-reactive protein, a blood marker of inflammation (-0.44), fell modestly, while the erythrocyte sedimentation rate did not change significantly. Knee osteoarthritis showed the biggest benefit (-0.86), and Dead Sea mud the strongest peloid effect (-0.84). Serious adverse events were no more common than in controls (relative risk 0.98); about 6.5% of mud recipients had mild, short-lived skin redness, largely from heat.
The authors note several limits: participants cannot be blinded to mud, peloid type, temperature and protocol varied widely, results differed between trials (I2 = 62% for pain), a correction for possible publication bias lowered the pain estimate to -0.66, most trials came from European spa settings, and safety beyond 12 months is unknown. They call for larger blinded trials with standardised peloids and longer follow-up, and frame pelotherapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for, drug and physiotherapy care.
Status of Evidence on the Efficacy and Safety of Indian Traditional Medicine for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Evidence Map Synthesis.
Galib Ruknuddin et al. (2026) · JMIR research protocols
This paper is not a study of a treatment — it is a detailed, PROSPERO-registered plan (protocol) for a future systematic review that will evaluate India's AYUSH traditional medicine systems (Ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa/Tibetan medicine, and homeopathy — governing prevention and personalized care) for managing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes affects roughly 537 million people worldwide, a number expected to more than double by 2050, and India alone had over 74 million cases in 2021 — with about half going undiagnosed — making a clear-eyed evidence review of its traditional treatment options a genuine public-health priority.
Once underway, two independent researchers will search major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase) plus AYUSH-specific sources, screening for studies conducted in India that test any of these six systems — whether used alone or alongside standard diabetes care — measuring outcomes like blood sugar levels (fasting and after meals), long-term blood sugar control (HbA1c), and insulin resistance, alongside safety data.
As of this publication, there are no results to report (the review had not yet started; database searching was planned for September 2025). What the protocol does establish is exactly how quality will be judged: each study will be scored with standard tools (from the NIH, and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) and then sorted into a visual "evidence map" — graded green, yellow, or red by the World Health Organization's A/B/C evidence-quality scale — showing at a glance where each traditional system has strong support and where the gaps are. The completed review and its findings are expected around December 2026, with publication in early 2027.
For now, the practical takeaway is that this protocol tells us what will be studied and how carefully, not what was found. Until the finished evidence map is published, none of the six systems named here has established evidence for diabetes management; the protocol itself states upfront limitations even for the eventual review: English-language sources only, India-based studies only, and no pooled statistical meta-analysis planned.