Article

Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy in chronic pelvic pain: A double-blind pilot study

Department of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacoeconomics, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, USA.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 3.97). 12/2002; 187(6):1581-7. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2002.128026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of static magnetic field therapy for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) by measuring changes in pain relief and disability.
Thirty-two patients with CPP completed 2 weeks and 19 patients completed 4 weeks of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled treatment at a gynecology clinic. Active (500 G) or placebo magnets were applied to abdominal trigger points for 24 hour per day. The McGill Pain Questionnaire, Pain Disability Index, and Clinical Global Impressions Scale were outcome measures.
Patients receiving active magnets who completed 4 weeks of double-blind treatment had significantly lower Pain Disability Index (P <.05), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (P <.05), and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (P <.01) scores than those receiving placebo magnets, but were more likely to correctly identify their treatment (P <.05).
SMF therapy significantly improves disability and may reduce pain when active magnets are worn continuously for 4 weeks in patients with CPP, but blinding efficacy is compromised.

0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many types of pain assessment are available to researchers carrying out clinical trials in chronic pelvic pain (CPP), ranging from a single-item scale to multidimensional inventories. Our objective was to investigate which assessments of pain are more commonly used in clinical trials on CPP. We have reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2014. A total of 74 studies out of 1299 original research articles reviewed met the selection criteria by containing at least one method of pain assessment. The selected studies were classified according to the dimensions of pain evaluated, the type of scale and the descriptors used. The instruments most frequently used were single-item VAS and Biberoglu and Behrman pain score, while multidimensional inventories were used in few studies. The results of clinical studies in CPP are more frequently based on one-dimensional measurements. Valuable results from clinical studies in CPP might have been omitted because of incomplete outcome measurements. We believe the authors of clinical studies should report their results in a comprehensive way including in the outcomes of the measurement of one-dimensional and multidimensional pain characteristics. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 03/2015; DOI:10.1111/jep.12340 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis. To assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain. We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register. We also searched (from inception to 5 February 2014) AMED, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We handsearched sources such as citation lists, trial registers and conference proceedings. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain were eligible for inclusion. We included studies of women with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome or adhesions but excluded those with pain known to be caused by endometriosis, primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), active chronic pelvic inflammatory disease or irritable bowel syndrome. We considered studies of any non-surgical intervention, including lifestyle, physical, medical and psychological treatments. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome measure was pain relief, and secondary outcome measures were psychological outcomes, quality of life, requirement for analgesia and adverse effects. The quality of the evidence was assessed by using GRADE methods. Twenty-one RCTs were identified that involved non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain: 13 trials were included in the review, and eight were excluded. The studies included a total of 750 women-406 women in the intervention groups and 344 in the control groups. Included studies had high attrition rates, and investigators often did not blind adequately or did not clearly describe randomisation procedures. Medical treatment versus placeboProgestogen (medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)) was more effective than placebo at the end of treatment in terms of the number of women achieving a greater than 50% reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score immediately after treatment (Peto OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.31, two studies, n = 204, I(2) = 22%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of benefit was maintained up to nine months after treatment (Peto OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.71, two studies, n = 204, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Women treated with progestogen reported more adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness) than those given placebo (high-quality evidence). The estimated effect of lofexidine on pain outcomes when compared with placebo was compatible with benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.61, one study, 39 women, low-quality evidence). Women in the lofexidine group reported more adverse effects (including drowsiness and dry mouth) than women given placebo (moderate-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons of medical treatmentsHead-to-head comparisons showed that women taking goserelin had greater improvement in pelvic pain score (MD 3, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.92, one study, n = 47, moderate-quality evidence) at one year than those taking progestogen. Women taking gabapentin had a lower VAS pain score than those taking amytriptyline (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.94, n = 40, low-quality evidence). Study authors reported that no statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of adverse effects among women taking gabapentin compared with women given amytriptyline. The study comparing goserelin versus progestogen did not report on adverse effects. Psychological treatmentWomen who underwent reassurance ultrasound scans and received counselling were more likely to report improved pain than those treated with a standard 'wait and see' policy (Peto OR 6.77, 95% CI 2.83 to 16.19, n = 90, low-quality evidence). Significantly more women who had writing therapy as a disclosure reported improvement in pain than those in the non-disclosure group (Peto OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 14.13, n = 48, very low-quality evidence). No difference between groups in pain outcomes was noted when other psychological therapies were compared with standard care or placebo (quality of evidence ranged from very low to low). Studies did not report on adverse effects. Complementary therapyDistension of painful pelvic structures was more effective for pain when compared with counselling (MD 35.8, 95% CI 23.08 to 48.52 on a zero to 100 scale, one study, n = 48, moderate-quality evidence). No difference in pain levels was observed when magnetic therapy was compared with use of a control magnet (very low-quality evidence). Studies did not report on adverse effects.The results of studies examining psychological and complementary therapies could not be combined to yield meaningful results. Evidence of moderate quality supports progestogen as an option for chronic pelvic pain, with efficacy reported during treatment. In practice, this option may be most acceptable among women unconcerned about progestogenic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness-the most common adverse effects). Although some evidence suggests possible benefit of goserelin when compared with progestogen, gabapentin as compared with amytriptyline, ultrasound versus 'wait and see' and writing therapy versus non-disclosure, the quality of evidence is generally low, and evidence is drawn from single studies.Given the prevalence and healthcare costs associated with chronic pelvic pain in women, RCTs of other medical, lifestyle and psychological interventions are urgently required.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 03/2014; 3(3):CD008797. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008797.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effectiveness of magnetotherapy in the treatment of hand osteoarthritis (HO). In this randomized controlled single-blind follow-up study, patients with HO were randomly assigned into 2 groups (G1 and G2). The subjects in G1 (n=25) received 25Hz, 450pulse/s, 5-80G, magnetotherapy of totally 10 days and 20min/day combined with active range of motion/strengthening exercises for the hand. G2 (n=25) received sham-magnetotherapy for 20min/day for the same duration combined with the same hand exercises. Outcome measures were pain and joint stiffness evaluation, handgrip and pinchgrip strength (HPS), Duruöz and Auscan Hand Osteoarthritis Indexes (DAOI) and Short Form-36 Health Questionnaire (SF-36) administered at baseline, immediately after treatment and at the follow up. When the groups were compared with each other, improvement observed in SF-36 Pain (p<0.001), SF-36 Social Function (p=0.030), SF-36 Vitality (p=0.002), SF-36 General Health (p=0.001), Pain at rest (p<0.001), Pain at motion (p<0.001), Joint stiffness (p<0.001), DAOI (p<0.001) were in favor of G1. Changes in pain, function and quality of life scores showed significant advantage in favor of the applied electromagnetic intervention in patients with HO.
    Complementary therapies in medicine 12/2013; 21(6):603-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ctim.2013.08.004 · 2.22 Impact Factor