Static Magnetic Field Therapy for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Feasibility Study

Helfgott Research Institute of the National College of Natural Medicine, Portland, OR 97201, USA.
Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.57). 07/2010; 91(7):1098-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.02.013
Source: PubMed


To assess the feasibility of conducting trials of static magnetic field (SMF) therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), to collect preliminary data on the effectiveness of 2 SMF dosages, and to explore the influence of an SMF on median nerve conduction.
Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial with a 6-week intervention and a 12-week follow-up.
University hospital outpatient clinics.
Women and men (N=60), ages 21 to 65 years, with an electrophysiologically confirmed CTS diagnosis recruited from the general population.
Participants wore nightly either neodymium magnets that delivered either 15 or 45 mTesla (mT) to the contents of the carpal canal or a nonmagnetic disk.
Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Function Severity Scale (FSS) of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) and 4 median nerve parameters: sensory distal latency, sensory nerve action potential amplitude, motor distal latency and compound motor action potential amplitude.
Fifty-eight of 60 randomized participants completed the study. There were no significant between-group differences for change in the primary endpoint SSS or for FSS or median nerve conduction parameters. For the SSS and the FSS, each group showed a reduction at 6 weeks indicating improvement in symptoms.
This study showed the feasibility and safety of testing SMF therapy for CTS. There were no between-group differences observed for the BCTQ or median nerve parameters after 6 weeks of SMF therapy. Significant within-group, symptomatic improvements of the same magnitude were experienced by participants in both active and sham magnet groups. Future studies are needed to optimize SMF dosimetry and resolve issues related to the use of sham controls in SMF trials.

Download full-text


Available from: Agatha P Colbert, Oct 05, 2015
43 Reads
  • Source
    01/2011; 54(1). DOI:10.11113/jt.v54.802
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, the registration of all clinical trials became mandatory prior to publication. Our primary objective was to determine publication rates for orthopaedic trauma trials registered with We further evaluated methodological consistency between registration and publication. We searched Clinical for all trials related to orthopaedic trauma. We excluded active trials and trials not completed by July 2009, and performed a systematic search for publications resulting from registered closed trials. Information regarding primary and secondary outcomes, intervention, study sponsors, and sample size were extracted from registrations and publications. Of 130 closed trials, 37 eligible trials resulted in 16 publications (43.2%). We found no significant differences in publication rates between funding sources for industry sponsored studies and nongovernment/nonindustry sponsored studies (p > 0.05). About half the trials (45%) did not include the NCT ID in the publication. Two (10%) publications had major changes to the primary outcome measure and ten (52.6%) to sample size. Registration of orthopaedic trauma trials does not consistently result in publication. When trials are registered, many do not cite NCT ID in the publication. Furthermore, changes that are not reflected in the registry of the trial are frequently made to the final publication.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2011; 12(1):278. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-12-278 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To assess the proportion of clinical trials explicitly reporting the risk of unblinding, to evaluate the completeness of reporting on unblinding risk, and to describe the reported procedures involved in assessing unblinding. Study design and setting: We sampled at random 300 blinded randomized clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2010. Two authors read the trial publications and extracted data independently. Results: Twenty-four trial publications, or 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5, 12%), explicitly reported the risk of unblinding, of which 16 publications, or 5% (95% CI, 3, 8%), reported compromised blinding; and 8 publications, or 3% (95% CI, 1, 5%), intact blinding. The reporting on risk of unblinding in the 24 trial publications was generally incomplete. The median proportion of assessments per trial affected by unblinding was 3% (range 1-30%). The most common mechanism for unblinding was perceptible physical properties of the treatments, for example, a difference in the taste and odor of a typhoid vaccine compared with its placebo. Conclusion: Published articles on randomized clinical trials infrequently reported risk of unblinding. This may reflect a tendency for avoiding reporting actual or suspected unblinding or a genuine low risk of unblinding.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 06/2014; 67(10). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.007 · 3.42 Impact Factor