Introduction Based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophic medicine (AM) is practiced in more than 80 countries around the world today. AM blends physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of life into patient care, nevertheless regarding itself as highly scientific. As a comparable systematic review (SR) of AM conducted more than two decades ago is now outdated, this review aims to establish an updated summary of the existing clinical evidence on AM.

Objectives The primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy of substance-based interventions in AM for patients with acute or chronic illnesses. Additionally, it assessed the safety and adverse drug reaction (ADR) profile of AM remedies.

Methods We reviewed available evidence on substance-based AM, focusing on mortality, morbidity and safety. All randomized and non-randomized trials of AM-specific monotherapies were considered, excluding mistletoe due to existing recent high-quality reviews. A Cochrane-compliant search strategy was employed across Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Anthromedlit-Datenbank, along manual reference list searches including studies published until November 2024.

Results Our searches yielded 360 hits of which 17 publications met inclusion criteria. Endpoints and diseases included allergic rhinitis, pain, stroke, and quality of life related outcomes. The only statistically significant result favoring AM was a post-hoc analysis of a neurasthenia trial—a vague diagnosis no longer included in the ICD-11. Another study assessing quality of life claimed clinically relevant improvements, but this was based on inappropriate statistical analyses. None of the other studies reported results unambiguously favoring AM. AM was well tolerated, with studies showing adverse drug reactions occurring in 0% to 3% of patients.

Conclusion Twenty years after a similar systematic review, the evidence for AM treatments remains largely unchanged. We conclude that these therapies are not supported by sound evidence. Their use in routine care must therefore be questioned.

Strengths and limitations of this study

Comprehensive and systematic approach: This review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, employed a Cochrane-compliant search strategy across six databases, and included rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria to ensure a thorough assessment of anthroposophic medicine (AM) interventions.

Inclusion of both randomized and non-randomized studies: Unlike previous reviews that focused solely on RCTs, this study also considered non-randomized trials and observational studies, increasing the breadth of available evidence while acknowledging the limitations of non-randomized data.

Rigorous risk of bias and quality assessment: Studies were evaluated using established tools (ROBIS, RoB 2, ROBINS-I), ensuring a transparent and critical assessment of methodological quality and potential biases.

Exclusion of multimodal interventions for clarity: To isolate the effects of AM substance-based therapies, this review excluded studies that combined AM remedies with non-pharmacological interventions, allowing for clearer attribution of treatment effects.

Potential limitations in language and publication bias: The review was restricted to studies in English, German, Spanish, Dutch, Czech, and Ukrainian, which may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies published in other languages or non-indexed sources. Additionally, the reliance on published literature may not fully account for negative or unpublished findings.

Key Messages

What is already known on this topic: AM is widely practiced and claims to integrate conventional medical practices with spiritual concepts, but its scientific foundation is highly questionable. A previous systematic review from 2004 found no high-quality evidence supporting the efficacy of AM treatments, leading to controversy between supporters of AM and critical clinicians.

What this study adds: This systematic review found no robust evidence supporting the efficacy of substance-based AM interventions for any medical condition with reviewed studies suffering from significant methodological flaws, selective reporting, and inappropriate statistical analyses, undermining their credibility.

How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: This calls into question their continued use in routine medical practice. Future research on AM must adhere to rigorous methodological standards to avoid misleading conclusions and ensure scientific integrity. Policymakers and healthcare providers should critically assess the inclusion of AM treatments in public healthcare systems and medical education.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024620083

This study was supported by the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This systematic review used only data of already published human trials from established data bases. (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Anthromedlit-Datenbank)

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Further data is available in the supplementary files. All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.