A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine: "Miscellaneous Therapies".
Authors: Bergh Anna, Lund Iréne, Boström Anna, Hyytiäinen Heli, Asplund Kjell
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Editorial Summary: Complementary and Alternative Therapies in Equine Practice—What Does the Evidence Actually Tell Us? Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) is gaining popularity amongst equine professionals and horse owners, yet the evidence base supporting these interventions remains poorly characterised. Swedish researchers conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature across Web of Science, CABI, and PubMed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of 24 CAVM therapies in companion animals and horses, screening 982 publications and ultimately including 42 eligible studies. Of the 24 therapies investigated, only nine had published research available: aromatherapy, gold therapy, homeopathy, hirudotherapy, mesotherapy, mud therapy, neural therapy, sound therapy, and vibration therapy—with the remaining 15 therapies having no peer-reviewed studies whatsoever. Critically, methodological quality was poor across the board, with only one study rated as having low risk of bias; even among the more robust studies, significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes made firm conclusions impossible. For equine professionals considering recommending or integrating CAVM approaches, this review underscores the necessity for high-quality clinical trials and emphasises that current evidence cannot reliably support claims of efficacy for most of these therapies—a distinction that should inform informed consent conversations with clients and evidence-based decision-making in practice.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Current scientific evidence is insufficient to support clinical efficacy claims for most complementary and alternative veterinary therapies including aromatherapy, gold therapy, homeopathy, and others
- •Practitioners should exercise caution when recommending CAVM therapies and acknowledge the lack of robust evidence to clients
- •Well-designed, rigorously controlled studies are needed before many CAVM therapies can be recommended based on scientific evidence
Key Findings
- •Of 982 publications screened, only 42 met inclusion criteria, covering 9 of 24 predefined CAVM therapies
- •15 predefined therapies had no identified studies
- •Risk of bias was high in 17 studies, with only 1 study assessed as having low risk of bias
- •Considerable heterogeneity in reported treatment effects prevented strong conclusions about clinical efficacy