Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of static magnets for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: results of a pilot study.
ABSTRACT Outpatient clinical studies of magnet therapy, a complementary therapy commonly used to treat osteoarthritis (OA), have been limited by the absence of a credible placebo control.
Our objective was to assess the feasibility and promise of studying static magnetic therapy for knee OA and determine the ability of a new placebo-magnet device to provide concealment of group assignment.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Academic teaching hospital in Boston.
We enrolled 29 subjects with idiopathic or post-traumatic OA of the knee.
Subjects received either high-strength magnetic (active) or placebo-magnetic (placebo) knee sleeve treatment for 4 hours in a monitored setting and self-treatment 6 hours daily for 6 weeks.
Primary outcomes were change in knee pain as measured by the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index Pain Subscale at 6 weeks and extent of group concealment at study end.
At 4 hours, VAS pain scores (+/- SE) on a 5-item scale (0-500, 500 worst) decreased 79 +/- 18 mm in the active group and 10 +/- 21 mm in the placebo group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in any primary or secondary measure of efficacy between the treatment groups at 6 weeks. Despite widespread testing for magnetic properties, at study end, 69% of the active group and 77% of the placebo group (P > 0.2) believed that they had been assigned to the active treatment group.
Despite our small sample size, magnets showed statistically significant efficacy compared to placebo after 4 hours under rigorously controlled conditions. The sustained efficacy of magnetic therapy for knee osteoarthritis could be assessed in an adequately powered trial utilizing an appropriate control such our new placebo-magnet device.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Static magnetic field (SMF) therapy delivered by permanent magnets is being used as a self-care intervention by millions of people worldwide, despite a paucity of clinical research confirming or refuting therapeutic effectiveness. Evaluating the reported results of SMF clinical trials is difficult because researchers use heterogeneous dosing regimens, unreliable sham controls, and questionable blinding strategies. Three important methodological challenges need to be contended with when conducting and interpreting SMF studies: optimization of SMF dosimetry, use of a believable physiologically inert sham, and assurance of participant blinding in unsupervised settings. Our objectives in writing this review are to describe ten essential SMF dosing parameters that need to be reported in SMF clinical trials and to discuss sham controls and blinding procedures for SMF studies.The Environmentalist 01/2009; 29(2):177-185.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Copper is present in different concentrations and chemical forms throughout the earth crust, surface and deep water and even, in trace amounts, in the atmosphere itself. Copper is one of the first metals used by humans, the first artifacts dating back 10,000 years ago. Currently, the world production of refined copper exceeds 16,000 tons / year. Copper is a micro-element essential to life, principally for its red-ox properties that make it a necessary cofactor for many enzymes, like cytochrome-c oxidase and superoxide dismutase. In some animal species (e.g. octopus, snails, spiders, oysters) copper-hemocyanins also act as carriers of oxygen instead of hemoglobin. However, these red-ox properties also make the pair Cu+/Cu2+ a formidable catalyst for the formation of Reactive Oxygen Species, when copper is present in excess in the body or in tissues. The treatment of choice in cases of copper overloading or intoxication is the chelation therapy. Different molecules are already in clinical use as chelators or under study or clinical trial. It is worth noting that chelation therapy has also been suggested to treat some neurodegenerative diseases or cardiovascular disorders. In this review, after a brief description of the homeostasis and some cases of dyshomeostasis of copper, the main (used or potential) chelators are described; their properties in solution, even in relation to the presence of metal or ligand competitors, under physiological conditions, are discussed. The legislation of the most important Western countries, regarding both the use of chelating agents and the limits of copper in foods, drugs and cosmetics, is also outlined.Current medicinal chemistry. 06/2014;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: HintergrundMagnetische und elektromagnetische Felder werden in der Medizin als reale physikalische Einheiten anerkannt, die insbesondere Heilung von Schmerzen versprechen. So gilt heute die Magnetfeldtherapie als eine nichtinvasive, sichere und einfache Methode zur direkten Behandlung der Stelle einer Verletzung, der Quelle von Schmerzen und Entzündungen sowie anderer Arten von Erkrankungen und Pathologien, obwohl es noch keinen Konsens darüber gibt, ob die Effekte auch statistisch relevant sind. Material und MethodenEine detaillierte Literaturrecherche wurde durchgeführt und evaluiert. Die eingeschlossenen Studien müssen doppelblind, placebokontrolliert und randomisiert sein. Zusätzlich zur magnetischen Wirkung durfte keine andere nicht dokumentierte Behandlung durchgeführt worden sein. ErgebnisseBei der Betrachtung der 17Studien mit statischem Magnetfeld zeigte sich im Durchschnitt kein signifikanter Unterschied in der Schmerzreduktion zwischen Magnetfeld- und Placebogruppen. In allen Studien, welche statische Magnetfelder verwendeten, gab es Hinweise darauf, dass Behandlungen im Zeitraum von 30min und im Abstand von 1Woche keine Auswirkungen haben. Bei der Betrachtung der 10Studien mit dynamischem Magnetfeld zeigten sich unterschiedliche Effekte, von ohne Effekt bis zu signifikanten Unterschieden der Ergebnisse der Schmerzreduktion zwischen den Behandlungs- und den Kontrollgruppen. SchlussfolgerungenStatische Magnetfelder sind schmerztherapeutisch wirkungslos. Dynamische Magnetfelder zeigen unterschiedliche Wirkungen. Dieses Therapieprinzip sollte eingehend erforscht werden. BackgroundMagnetic and electromagnetic fields have been accepted as real physical entities in medicine and are believed to achieve pain relief. Magnetic field therapy has been acknowledged as a non-invasive, safe and simple method for treatment of the site of injury, source of pain or inflammation, or other types of illnesses and pathologies. However, a consensus regarding the statistical relevance of the effects has not been established. Materials and methodsA detailed literature research was performed and the results were evaluated. Inclusion criteria were that the studies had to be randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled, and no additional forms of treatment other than magnetic effects were allowed to be used. ResultsThe evaluation of 17studies with static magnetic fields showed on average no significant difference in pain relief between the group treated with magnetic fields and the placebo group. All studies using magnetic fields showed that forms of treatment conducted over a period of 30min and at intervals of 1week have no effects. In 10studies with dynamic magnetic fields different effects were registered, which ranged from no effect to significant differences regarding pain relief between the treated and the control groups. ConclusionsStatic magnetic fields are ineffective with respect to pain therapy. Dynamic magnetic fields show diverse effects. Hence, this therapy should be researched in depth. SchlüsselwörterMagnetfeldtherapie–Magnetstimulationstherapie–Magnetische Phänomene–Magnetresonanz–Schmerz KeywordsMagnetic field therapy–Magnetic stimulation therapy–Magnetics–Magnetic resonance–PainDer Schmerz 25(2):157-165. · 1.02 Impact Factor