ArticlePDF Available

Health technology assessment of magnet therapy for relieving pain

June 2017
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 31(1):184-188

DOI:10.18869/mjiri.31.31

License
CC BY-NC 4.0

Authors:

Jalal Arabloo

Iran University of Medical Sciences

Pejman Hamouzadeh

Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh

Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Alireza Olyaeemanesh

Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Show all 7 authorsHide

Background: Magnet therapy has been used increasingly as a new method to alleviate pain. Magnetic products are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain of various origins. However, there are inconsistent results from a limited number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the analgesic efficacy of magnet therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of magnet therapy on reliving various types of pain. Methods: A systematic search of two main medical databases (Cochrane Library and Ovid Medline) was conducted from 1946 to May 2014. Only English systematic reviews that compared magnet therapy with other conventional treatments in patients with local pain in terms of pain relieving measures were included. The results of the included studies were thematically synthesized. Results: Eight studies were included. Magnet therapy could be used to alleviate pain of various origins including pain in various organs, arthritis, myofascial muscle pain, lower limb muscle cramps, carpal tunnel syndrome and pelvic pain. Results showed that the effectiveness of magnetic therapy was only approved in muscle pains, but its effectiveness in other indications and its application as a complementary treatment have not been established. Conclusion: According to the results, it seems that magnet therapy could not be an effective treatment for relieving different types of pain. Our results highlighted the need for further investigations to be done in order to support any recommendations about this technology.

Flow of the Papers through the Study

…

Figures - uploaded by sh Doaee

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by sh Doaee

Content may be subject to copyright.

Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0

Content may be subject to copyright.

Original Article

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)

Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017(11 June);31.31. https://doi.org/10.18869/mjiri.31.31

______________________________

Corresponding author: Dr Alireza Olyaeemanesh, arolyaee@gmail.com

Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical

Sciences.

. Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health,

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

. Health Management and Economics Research Centre, School of Health Manage-

ment and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

. National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences,

Tehran, Iran.

. Standard and Tariff Office, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran.

↑What is “already known” in this topic:

There are inconsistent results about efficacy of magnet therapy

for reducing different types of pain.

→What this article adds:

Compared to routine treatments in in relieving different types

of pain, our systematic review showed that Magnet therapy is

not effective.

Health technology assessment of magnet therapy for

relieving pain

Jalal Arabloo1, Pejman Hamouzadeh2, Fereshteh Eftekharizadeh3, Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh4

Alireza Olyaeemanesh4*, Mina Nejati5, Shila Doaee5

Received: 20 Jan 2017 Published: 11 June 2017

Abstract

Background: Magnet therapy has been used increasingly as a new method to alleviate pain. Magnetic products are marketed with

claims of effectiveness for reducing pain of various origins. However, there are inconsistent results from a limited number of random-

ized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the analgesic efficacy of magnet therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness

of magnet therapy on reliving various types of pain.

Methods: A systematic search of two main medical databases (Cochrane Library and Ovid Medline) was conducted from 1946 to

May 2014. Only English systematic reviews that compared magnet therapy with other conventional treatments in patients with local

pain in terms of pain relieving measures were included. The results of the included studies were thematically synthesized.

Results: Eight studies were included. Magnet therapy could be used to alleviate pain of various origins including pain in various

organs, arthritis, myofascial muscle pain, lower limb muscle cramps, carpal tunnel syndrome and pelvic pain. Results showed that the

effectiveness of magnetic therapy was only approved in muscle pains, but its effectiveness in other indications and its application as a

complementary treatment have not been established.

Conclusion: According to the results, it seems that magnet therapy could not be an effective treatment for relieving different types of

pain. Our results highlighted the need for further investigations to be done in order to support any recommendations about this tech-

nology.

Keywords: Magnet therapy, Pain relief, Systematic review

Cite this article as: Arabloo J, Hamouzadeh P, Eftekharizadeh F, Mobinizadeh M, Olyaeemanesh A, Nejati M, Doaee Sh. Health technology assess-

ment of magnet therapy for relieving pain. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 (11 June);31:31. https://doi.org/10.18869/mjiri.31.31

Introduction

Considering the development and changes in the type of

disease and emergence of chronic diseases such as arthro-

dial pains, cancers etc., disease burden and further costs

due to using chemical drugs have been considered. This

subject not only imposes an enormous cost to the health

system, but also the side effects due to the use of drugs

have resulted in dissatisfaction of patients and a tendency

towards alternative treatments. Currently, the tendency

towards alternative treatments in medical science is in-

creasing. These treatments have been used for a long time,

but they are now increasingly used in the West culture.

Considering the lower side effects of alternative treat-

ments such as traditional medicine, acupuncture, energy

therapy, aromatherapy, chiropractic etc. and because more

people want to test such methods hoping to improve their

health, more extensive and various brands have entered

into the market. One of these alternative treatments that is

somewhat known, is magnetic therapy. Despite the fact

Health technology assessment of magnet therapy

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

ed J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 (11 June); 31:31.

that magnet therapy is attractive for the patients and pro-

vides an easy solution for the treatment of pain, and it is

relatively safe, durable and noninvasive and easily acces-

sible at the pharmacies and even a few supermarkets, there

are no well-known scientific evidences and biological

mechanisms to prove its efficacy in relieving pain (1).

Kim (2000) deems magnetic therapy as a normal and

noninvasive method, because it uses an external tool such

as magnets to treat an area of the body. In the past, the

Greece physicians used rings made of iron to treat arthri-

tis. In the 17

th century, Germans used magnetic force to

treat headache, gout and venereal diseases. Nowadays, the

claim of magnetic therapy has advanced from reducing the

wounds healing period to the growth of incomplete and

dying neonates. The magnets are used to reduce stress and

infections, prevent sudden attacks, and improve bones and

postsurgical wounds. In general, artificial magnets are

divided into two fixed and temporary types, and their en-

ergy acts in the magnetic field generated by a series of

electrons or the electric current, and its intensity is setta-

ble. Most of magnets used for medical and health purpos-

es are of fixed type with a long magnetic impact and var-

ied within 30-5000 gauss. Magnet intensity that is ex-

pressed by gauss indicates the number of magnetic lines

that are crossed through an area of one square cm. For

instance, magnetic virtue of the earth is about 0.5 gauss,

whilst the magnetic intensity of magnets used for treat-

ment and pain alleviation was reported to be 300-5000

gauss (2).

These magnets are used in different objects such as spe-

cial hand and foot wristbands, soft guards, necklace, slip-

sole, bracelet, back-band and mat, allocating a huge bil-

lion dollar industry to itself with the claim of body parts’

pain relieving and sedating (3).

These products include magnetic slip soles whose mag-

nets are embedded therein targeting the reflex points for

foot resting. Magnetic parts contain neodymium used for

increasing the blood circulation, backache and leg pain.

Magnetic knee pad is used as a noninvasive pains relief

tool, and accelerates blood circulation and sedates the

knee pain. Magnetic earrings: Magnetic energy is trans-

ferred from the iron existing in the body and provides

transfer of oxygen and nutrients for the tissues. This ear-

ring acts through pressing points on the ear to control the

appetite, relief of headache, neck pain, and jaw problems.

Magnetic mats with the power of 3,950 gauss have been

called the best therapeutic magnetic tool used to relieve

backache, acceleration of blood circulation, treatment of

sleeplessness, relief of joints and muscles pain, rheuma-

toid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Magnetic belt with the

power of 1,000 gauss provides the maximum energy of

magnetic therapy for the back. Magnetic mask whose gold

pieces are embedded therein is operated with the power of

2,500 gauss for facial wrinkles. Magnetic bracelet relieves

the carpus, inflammation, stiffness and blood circulation

to the ribs outside area and it is claimed that this device

can be used to relieve pains in case of arthritis, and the

problems of carpal vessel (3). There are many notions in

the field of magnets mechanism , some of which believe

that magnetic field upon changing the membrane potential

reduces the neural depolarization. Some others believe

that magnetic field increases the blood flow under the skin

and muscular tissues and so reduces the pain (1).

Research Questions

This assessment article addressed the following ques-

tion:

What is the safety and effectiveness of magnet therapy

for relieving pain?

Study Objectives

This study aimed to systematically assess the safety

and

effectiveness of magnet therapy for relieving pain.

Methods

Literature Search

This was a systematic review aiming to examine the ef-

fectiveness of magnet therapy on reducing pain. In this

study, references were searched based on the most im-

portant databases including electronic Cochrane Library

(Cochrane Reviews (Reviews and Protocols), Technology

Assessments and Economic Evaluations) and Ovid Med-

line from 1946 to May 2014, systematically. According to

the manual search via Google browser, three articles were

added to the studied articles. At the end of this stage, 20

articles were found. However, after the review, we found

that six articles were unrelated, two were found more than

once and four were removed due to lack of complete text

and abstract. Articles were searched only in English lan-

guage and after assessing the consistency to the inclusion

and exclusion criteria, eight articles were selected for the

final stage (Table 1, Figure 1).

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Study Design

 Systematic reviews were searched originally, as they

provided the most reliable forms of evidence.

Intervention

 Magnet therapy

Population

 Population of patients with local pains in different or-

gans

Comparators

 Other conventional healing methods for relieving pain

Outcomes

Summary of the results were analyzed in six subgroups

as follows:

 Pain in various organs

 Arthritis pains

 Myofascial trigger points and myofascial pain syn-

drome pains

 Lower lime muscle cramps pains

 Carpal tunnel syndrome pains

 Pelvic pains

J. Arabloo, et al.

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

ed J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 (11 June); 31.31.

Quality Appraisal Method

Most of the included studies had a desirable quality (us-

ing CASP checklist); nonetheless, the quality of the study

was not used as a tool to remove the articles.

Synthesizing Method

Data were extracted from the included studied via a re-

searcher-made data extraction form. Pre-specified out-

comes were presented within a descriptive synthesis.

Results

Literature Search Results

All the eight articles were systematic review studies (4-

11); of them, one study was conducted in 2014 (5), two

studies in 2012 (4,7), one in 2009 (11), one in 2008 (6),

one in 2007 (9) and one in 2006 (10). The summary of the

results obtained from the thematic synthesis was analyzed

in six subgroups: Pain in various organs, arthritis, myofas-

cial trigger points and myofascial pain syndrome, lower

lime muscle cramps, carpal tunnel syndrome and pelvic

pain (Table 1, Figure 1).

Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Results

A. Pain in Various Organs: In the study conducted by

Pitler et al. (2007), the results of the analyses revealed no

significant difference in pain reduction by magnetic thera-

py (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual ana-

logue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval –1.8 to 5.9

mm, p= 0.29). Evidences do not support the use of mag-

netic therapy for reduction of pain; therefore, magnet ther-

apy may not be recommended as an effective treatment

(9).

In the systematic review studies of Colbert el al., 37

studies out of 42 (88%) reported therapeutic profits. The

only side effect, exacerbation of hot flushes and skin irri-

tation, was due to adhesives. Most of the studies (34 out of

42, or 88%) reported therapeutic benefits for magnetic

therapy (such as pain reduction). Only in one study, the

result of magnetic therapy has not been reported positive-

ly. In this study, not only patients’ pain has not been re-

lieved, but also their skin became red due to the use of

magnets. The summary of another study in patients suffer-

ing from migraine headache was ineffectual due to the

high rate of exclusion from the study (6).

B. Arthritis: In the systematic review of Macfarlane et

al., none of the included studies had reported the positive

effects of magnetic therapy on pain. However, in some

studies of this systematic review, positive effects were

observed on the patient’s global assessment of pain in

specific time points. In one of the included studies in this

systematic review, the impact of the device (Magna Bloc),

a strong static magnet device having powerful magnetic

field, was compared to a similar control device with a

weak magnetic power. The patients selected either the

strong static magnet device or the weak static magnet de-

vice for one week for their knee. Although both groups

had reported considerable reduction of pain, no significant

Fig. 1. Flow of the Papers through the Study

Health technology assessment of magnet therapy

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

ed J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 (11 June); 31:31.

difference was observed between the two groups in the

light of consequences such as pain. The group using high-

strength magnet, compared to the low-strength magnet,

experienced a significantly greater decrease in their global

assessment of disease activity (33% in comparison to 2%).

Similarly, the subjective assessment of treatment out-

comes in Magna Bloc was significantly better. In addition,

the treatment group (68%) felt better than the control

group (27%). In this study, no side effects were

mentioned. In the two high quality trials, the impact of

magnet with high intensity and low intensity was com-

pared. In the first trial, after four hours of therapy, a con-

siderable improvement in pain reduction was observed,

using patient’s overall assessment, and in magnet with

high intensity compared to magnet with low intensity

(visual analogue scale: 79 mm in contrast with 10 mm, p-

value: 0.03). Nonetheless, no difference was found for

pain reduction in six weeks. A few cases of mild discom-

fort, confusion, increased pain and stiffness in both groups

were reported. In the second trial, more relief was ob-

served in the pain for standard magnet compared to a steel

washer group, but not when compared to a weak magnet.

In the same systematic review study, in two other trials,

the effect of magnet was tested compared to a sham mag-

net. At first, after a 12-week therapy period, the pain was

significantly reduced. A case of skin irritation was ob-

served as the result of knee packing coverage. In the sec-

ond trial, the pain reduction after a 2-week treatment peri-

od was more in the magnet group than the sham magnet

group. In the final trial (45 cases), no considerable ad-

vantage of magnetic wristband compared to a magnetic or

nonmagnetic wristband, was reported in relation to pain

reduction (7).

C. Myofascial Trigger Points: Evidences of laser thera-

py support the electrical stimulation of nerve, acupunc-

ture, and magnetic therapy (on average) for myofascial

trigger points syndrome and myofascial pain syndrome;

however, the relief and improvement period is different

among these methods. Primary evidences indicate that the

magnets can be effective in the treatment of these two

syndromes (11). In the systematic review study of Rich-

ards, it was proved that the use of alternative magnetic

stimulation is more effective than placebo in reducing

neck muscles pain, and these changes were continued in

the three months follow-up. However, this result is under

the impact of the heterogeneity of clinical trials included

in this study that current evidence did not go beyond the

moderate level. Thus, primary evidences suggest that

magnetic therapy may be effective for pain reduction;

nonetheless, further studies will be required to support

Table 1. Summary of the included articles

Author, Year Setting Title Study Design Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Pittler et al.,

2007

UK Static magnets for reducing pain:

systematic review

and meta-analysis of randomized

trials (9)

Systematic review

and meta-analysis

Study type: randomized controlled trials.

Intervention: static magnets for treating pain

from any cause

Control: placebo or a weak magnet

Outcome: mean change in pain

Macfarlane et

al., 2012

UK A systematic review of evidence for

the effectiveness of practitioner-

based complementary and alterna-

tive therapies in the management of

rheumatic diseases: osteoarthritis (7)

Systematic review Study type: randomized controlled trials

Intervention: using magnetic therapy,

Control: sham therapy

Outcome: patient’s global assessment of pain,

pain reduction

Vernon H et al.,

2009

Canada Chiropractic management of myo-

fascial trigger points and myofascial

pain syndrome: A systematic review

of the literature (11)

Systematic review Study type: randomized controlled trials,

Intervention: routine therapeutic methods used

in chiropractic

Outcome: pain relief

Blyton et al.,

2012

Australia Non-drug therapies for lower limb

muscle cramps (Review) (4)

Systematic review Study type: randomized controlled trials,

Interventions: all non-pharmacological and non-

invasive interventions used for treatment of

muscle cramps

Outcome: severity and frequency of muscle

cramps, quality of life, participation in daily

activities and Quality of sleep

O’Connor et al.,

2003

Australia Non-surgical treatment (other than

steroid injection) for

carpal tunnel syndrome (Review)

(8)

Systematic review Study type: randomized and semi-randomized

controlled trials

Intervention: all non-invasive interventions used

for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome

Outcome: improvement of clinical symptoms)

Rickards et al.,

2006

Australia The effectiveness of non-invasive

treatments for active myofascial

trigger point pain: A systematic

review of the literature (10)

Systematic review Study type: randomized and semi randomized

controlled trials,

Interventions: laser therapy, electrotherapy,

ultrasound, magnetic therapy and occupational

therapy, Outcome: pain severity

Colbert et al.,

2008

USA Magnets applied to acupuncture

points as therapy - a literature re-

view (6)

Systematic review Study type: human studies with all study de-

signs and for all clinical indications.

Interventions: acu-magnet therapy

Outcome: therapeutic benefit

Cheong et al,

2014

UK Non-surgical interventions for the

management of chronic pelvic pain

(Review) (5)

Systematic review Study type: randomized controlled trials,

Interventions: nonsurgical methods for treat-

ment of chronic pelvic pain

Outcome: pain reduction

J. Arabloo, et al.

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

ed J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 (11 June); 31.31.

these findings. Moreover, due to a few side effects of

magnetic therapy, it is better to apply a few nonuse cases

(10).

D. Lower Limb Muscle Cramps: There are limited evi-

dences for making a decision about the application of non-

pharmacological treatment of lower limb muscle cramps.

Magnetic therapy is equally effective in treating restless

leg syndrome and leg cramps compared to placebo. Fur-

ther research is required to determine the effectiveness of

non-pharmacological treatments for lower limb muscle

cramps (primary outcomes included frequency of cramps

(cramps time weekly)- secondary outcomes included ad-

verse effects ,cramps severity, cramps period, quality of

life related to health, quality of sleep, participation in daily

activities) (4).

E. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Clinical consequences im-

provement rate was used to assess the effectiveness of

nonsurgical treatments (to steroid injection) on carpal tun-

nel syndrome compared to placebo or control group. Cur-

rent evidences indicated significant short-term advantages

in the use of edible steroid, splint, ultrasound, yoga, and

bone displacement for treating carpal tunnel syndrome. A

few evidences suggest that magnetic therapy does not sig-

nificantly relieve the pain in carpal tunnel syndrome (8).

F. Pelvic Pain: No difference was seen in pain levels at

the time of using magnetic therapy compared to a placebo

device. No evidences were observed on the advantages in

women receiving active magnets who received double-

blind therapy for four weeks compared to those who re-

ceived placebo magnets with respect to pelvic pain, inter-

national clinical severity and pain inability scores of

McGill (5).

Discussion

According to the results, magnetic therapy can be used

to reduce pain in various organs, arthritis, myofascial

muscle pain, lower limb muscle clamps, carpal tunnel

syndrome and pelvic pain. It is concluded that only in

myofascial pain syndrome indication, magnetic therapy

obtained positive outcomes that two included papers were

related to this subject. This results referred to this point

that further studies are required to prove the full effective-

ness of magnetic therapy (10,11). However, according to

the available evidence, magnetic therapy does not seem to

have any clinical effectiveness in other indications.

Whereas the clinical outcomes of magnetic therapy are

currently being studied extensively, we need to increase

the clinical trials and perform studies to determine the

validity of the results of the present study. It is noteworthy

to mention that no evidence was found on the cost of

magnet therapy compared to other conventional methods

in the included studies. Furthermore, in addition to issues

related to safety and effectiveness of magnetic therapy,

future studies should be conducted on this type of therapy

from economic and cost effectiveness aspects; also, on

specifying conditions that magnetic therapy may be a

cost-effective treatment strategy. If each one of the mag-

netic therapy indications be proved, it is necessary to eco-

nomic studies be applied on its cost-effectiveness in com-

parison to other therapies, to respond appropriately the

urgent need of health policymakers to make decisions

related to this technology.

Conclusion

According to the obtained results, magnetic therapy

does not seem to be an alternative for routine treatments in

reducing pain and it is only effective in reducing myofas-

cial pain in low evidence level according to the reviewed

studies in systematic reviews included in this health tech-

nology assessment. According to the summary of the in-

cluded papers, further studies with more samples seem to

be necessary for assessment of efficacy and safety of this

technology. Furthermore, the present study may have

some limitations, which are as follows: In the present

study, only English articles were included, whilst the ap-

plication of magnetic therapy is prevalent in China and

Japan and many articles have been published on this sub-

ject in these two countries.

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted with the financial support of

IR Iran's National Institute of Health Research, Tehran

University of Medical Sciences; Contract No.

241/M/91278.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. Cepeda MS, Carr DB, Sarquis T, Miranda N, Garcia RJ, Zarate C.

Static magnetic therapy does not decrease pain or opioid

requirements: a randomized double-blind trial. Anesth Analg.

2007;104(2):290-4.

2. Ratterman R, Secrest J, Norwood B, Ch'ien AP. Magnet therapy:

what's the attraction? J Am Acad Nurs Pract. 2002;14(8):347-53.

3. Anonymous. How Magnetic Therapy Works? [cited May 2014].

Available from: URL:http://www.magnetictherapysales.com.

4. Blyton F, Chuter V, Walter KE, Burns J. Non‐drug therapies for lower

limb muscle cramps. The Cochrane Library. 2012.

5. Cheong YC, Smotra G, Williams ACdC. Non‐surgical interventions

for the management of chronic pelvic pain. The Cochrane Library.

2014.

6. Colbert AP, Cleaver J, Brown KA, Harling N, Hwang Y, Schiffke HC,

et al. Magnets applied to acupuncture points as therapy–a literature

review. Acupunct Med. 2008;26(3):160-70.

7. Macfarlane GJ, Paudyal P, Doherty M, Ernst E, Lewith G,

MacPherson H, et al. A systematic review of evidence for the

effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative

therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: osteoarthritis.

Rheumatology. 2012;51(12):2224-33.

8. O'Connor D, Marshall SC, Massy‐Westropp N, Pitt V. Non‐surgical

treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Cochrane Library. 2003.

9. Pittler MH, Brown EM, Ernst E. Static magnets for reducing pain:

systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ.

2007;177(7):736-42.

10. Rickards LD. The effectiveness of non-invasive treatments for active

myofascial trigger point pain: a systematic review of the literature.

Int J Osteopath Med. 2006;9(4):120-36.

11. Vernon H, Schneider M. Chiropractic management of myofascial

trigger points and myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review of

the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009;32(1):14-24.

Effects of a Magnetic Pain Relief Patch on Gait Variability in Adults: A Preliminary Study

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Do-Youn Lee

Electromagnetic fields as a non-invasive alternative therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal diseases

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022

This review article elucidates the application and viability of electromagnetic fields as therapy and rehabilitation method for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. All studies were found in different databases such as Science Direct, Scielo, IEEE, ProQuest, Pubmed, among others, where the search for information contemplated a period of 5 years (2016-2020). Results evidenced that electromagnetic fields used to treat musculoskeletal conditions showed positive results and improvements in reducing chronic and acute pain in different musculoskeletal pathologies such as osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, nonunions, fractures, fibromyalgia, muscular system injuries, among others. It was possible to evidence that one of the most used magnetic treatments were pulsed electromagnetic fields, which have been implemented to treat joint, muscle and nervous diseases. Additionally, several devices to generate the magnetic stimulation have been designed with a therapeutic and rehabilitation approach, which elucidate the progress in the implementation and acceptance of this type of therapeutic alternatives to treat musculoskeletal conditions. Finally, magnetic stimulation has been also implemented to enhance biomaterials function, evidencing that scaffolds stimulated with electromagnetic fields improve musculoskeletal tissue regeneration.

Effect of static magnetic field therapy on diabetic neuropathy and quality of life: a double-blind, randomized trial

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Background: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) that can cause annoying symptoms. To address this condition, several treatment approaches have been proposed, including static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, which has shown promise in treating neurological conditions. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of SMF therapy on symptomatic DPN and the quality of life (QoL) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted from April to October 2021. Sixty-four DPN patients (20 males, 44 females) were recruited for the study via invitation. The participants were divided into two groups: the magnet group, which used magnetic ankle bracelets (155 mT) for 12 weeks, and the sham group, which used non-magnetic ankle bracelets for the same duration. Neuropathy Symptom Score (NSS), Neuropathic Disability Score (NDS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess neuropathy symptoms and pain. In addition, the Neuropathy Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Neuro-QoL) tool was used to measure the patients' quality of life. Results: Before treatment, there were no significant differences between the magnet and sham groups in terms of the NSS scores (P = 0.50), NDS scores (P = 0.74), VAS scores (P = 0.17), and Neuro-QoL scores (P = 0.82). However, after 12 weeks of treatment, the SMF exposure group showed a significant reduction in NSS scores (P < 0.001), NDS scores (P < 0.001), VAS scores (P < 0.001), and Neuro-QoL scores (P < 0.001) compared to the baseline. The changes in the sham group, on the other hand, were not significant. Conclusion: According to obtained data, SMF therapy is recommended as an easy-to-use and drug-free method for reducing DPN symptoms and improving QoL in diabetic type-2 patients. Trial registration Registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials: IRCT20210315050706N1, 2021/03/16.

Study the effect of static magnetic field intensity on drug delivery by magnetic nanoparticles

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2021

Employing the magnets in therapy has a long history of treating diseases, and currently new applications such as drug delivery by magnetic nanoparticles are gaining more attention. This research tried to study the effect of static magnetic field intensity on drug delivery by magnetic nanoparticles carrying thrombolytic agents. In this research, Fe 3 O 4 @SiO 2 nanoparticles carrying streptokinase were applied. The efficiency of thrombolysis and micro-CT-scan images are utilized to study the effect of different magnetic fields (0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 T) on thrombolysis. The results confirm that increasing the static magnetic field intensity accelerated the thrombolysis. Increasing the intensity of the magnetic field from 0.1 to 0.3 T leads to an increase in clot dissolution rate from 55 to 89%, respectively. Moreover, micro-CT-scan images revealed that magnetic nanoparticles carrying a thrombolytic agent penetrated deeper into the mesh-like structure of clot as the magnetic field intensities increased, which could lead to further dissolution of the clot.

The use of an alternating magnetic field in the resorption of postoperative joint effusion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A randomized double-blind controlled trial

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2021
MEDICINE

Context: There are no scientific reports unambiguously describing the efficacy of alternating magnetic field therapy in patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the early postoperative period. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of using an alternating magnetic field in the resorption of postoperative joint effusion in patients after ACL reconstruction. Study design: A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Setting: Inpatients. Participants: Forty patients were enrolled in the trial. However, the final study group consisted of 38 patients (28 men and 10 women) after ACL reconstruction who were randomly divided into an experimental group (19 patients) and a control group (19 patients). Intervention: Each group received magnetic field therapy in the postoperative period, but only 1 apparatus emitted a magnetic field (the experimental group). Patients used the apparatus every day for 30 minutes for the next 11 days. The parameters in both devices were the same-3 mT and 10 Hz. Main outcome measures: The measurement of the knee circumference and range of motion were made. The knee circumference measurement was performed before magnetic field therapy began and for 11 days after magnetic field treatment. The active knee range of motion was evaluated before and after magnetic field therapy was completed. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the reduction of post-operative joint effusion or knee joint function. Conclusion: In patients after ACL reconstruction, in whom an alternating magnetic field was used to treat postoperative joint effusion, there were no beneficial effects on the analyzed variables compared to the control group.

A Review on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches to Health Technology Assessment (Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması)

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2020

Sağlık sektöründe yer alan ilaçlar, tıbbi tedavi prosedürleri, tıbbı cihazlar, cerrahi teknikler ve sağlık sistemleri Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme (STD) kapsamında değerlendirilmektedir. Bu tip sağlık teknolojilerinin çeşitli yönlerden ele alınarak belirlenen kriterler ve istenen hedef doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesinde STD gittikçe popülerleşen bir yöntemdir. Sağlık sektöründe kaynakların kısıtlı olması ve maliyetlerin son yıllarda artış göstermesi, bu sektördeki karar vericileri etkili, güvenilir ve rasyonel adımlar atmaya itmiş ve STD’ye olan ilgiyi artırmıştır. STD’ye olan ilginin artmasıyla beraber kapsamı da çok kriterli ve paydaşlı olacak şekilde genişlemiştir. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri birden fazla kriter altında alternatifler arasından en iyi alternatifin seçilmesinde önemli rol oynar. Sağlık sektöründe yaşanan gelişmeler, sağlıkta eniyileme ve kanıta dayalı tıp uygulamalarının yaygınlaşması STD çalışmalarında ÇKKV yöntemlerine olan ilgiyi her geçen gün artırmaktadır. Bu derleme çalışmasında, literatürde son 10 yılda yapılan STD çalışmaları ve ÇKKV yaklaşımlarıyla yapılan STD çalışmaları kapsamlı bir biçimde özetlenmiş ve sınıflandırılmıştır. Ayrıca derleme çalışmasının sonucunda, STD çalışmalarında ÇKKV yöntemlerinin kullanımının 2008 yılından sonra hızlı bir şekilde arttığı gözlemlenmiştir. En sık kullanılan ÇKKV yöntemlerinin ise AHP (Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi), EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DecisionMaking) ve ağırlıklı çarpım olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Drugs, medical treatment procedures, medical devices, surgical techniques and health systems in the healthcare field are in the scope of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). HTA is becoming a popular method to evaluate these health technologies by considering determined target and criteria. Limited resources and increasing costs in the healthcare field have prompted healthcare decision-makers to make effective, reliable and rational decisions and raised the interest on HTA. In this context, the importance of HTA has increased and its scope has expanded to include multiple criteria and stakeholders. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) plays an important role in selecting the best alternative from a set of available alternatives with respect to multiple criteria. Developments in the healthcare field, widespread utilization of optimization and evidence-based medicine studies are increasing the interest in utilization of MCDM methods in HTA studies day by day. In this study, HTA studies and HTA studies integrated with MCDM methods are reviewed and classified in a comprehensive manner. As a result of this review study, it is observed that utilization of MCDM methods in HTA studies has increased rapidly after 2008. In addition, AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DecisionMaking) and weighted product method are found to be the most commonly used MCDM techniques.

EFFECT OF APPLICATION OF STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS USING THE DOUBLE MAGNET OF MEDICINAL BIOMAGNETISM IN DYSMENORRHEA: CASE REPORTS

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

Introduction: Menstrual colic, or dysmenorrhea, is a common gynecological complaint characterized by pelvic cramp-like pain before or during menstruation. Medicinal Biomagnetism (BM) is a complementary and integrative method that may help in the treatment and prevention of dysmenorrhea symptoms. It aims to restore the energetic balance and ideal pH of the area impacted by medium-intensity therapeutic magnets. Objective: To investigate the effect of the Double BM Magnet on acute menstrual colic pain. Methodology: A case study involving two participants where the Double BM Magnet protocol was applied to address dysmenorrhea, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale. Results: It was observed that the Double BM Magnet tool generated an analgesic effect on menstrual colic pain, providing a significant result within 60 minutes of its application. Conclusion: This study suggests that the application of the Double BM Magnet in the pelvic region for the relief of menstrual pain can have a significant analgesic effect. It proves to be relevant due to its ease of application, non- invasiveness, low cost, and the possibility of self-application. Furthermore, it has minimal contraindications and rare side effects.

Thermal Effects of Pulsed Magnetotherapy on Implants

Conference Paper

Mar 2021

A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: Osteoarthritis

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2012

Objective: To critically review the evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary therapies for patients with osteoarthritis. We excluded t'ai chi and acupuncture, which have been the subject of recent reviews. Methods: Randomized controlled trials, published in English up to May 2011, were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes, statistical significance in comparison with alternative treatments and reported side effects. The methodological quality of the identified studies was determined using the Jadad scoring system. Outcomes considered were pain and patient global assessment. Results: In all, 16 eligible trials were identified covering 12 therapies. Overall, there was no good evidence of the effectiveness of any of the therapies in relation to pain or global health improvement/quality of life because most therapies only had a single randomized controlled trial. Where positive results were reported, they were often comparing an active intervention with no intervention. Therapies with multiple trials either provided null (biofeedback) or inconsistent results (magnet therapy), or the trials available scored poorly for quality (chiropractic). There were few adverse events reported in the trials. Conclusion: There is not sufficient evidence to recommend any of the practitioner-based complementary therapies considered here for the management of OA, but neither is there sufficient evidence to conclude that they are not effective or efficacious.

Magnets Applied to Acupuncture Points as Therapy – a Literature Review

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2008

To summarise the acu-magnet therapy literature and determine if the evidence justifies further investigation of acu-magnet therapy for specific clinical indications. Using various search strategies, a professional librarian searched six electronic databases (PubMed, AMED, ScienceDirect College Edition, China Academic Journals, Acubriefs, and the in-house Journal Article Index maintained by the Oregon College of Oriental Medicine Library). English and Chinese language human studies with all study designs and for all clinical indications were included. Excluded were experimental and animal studies, electroacupuncture and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design, number, age and gender of subjects, magnetic devices used, acu-magnet dosing regimens (acu-point site of magnet application and frequency and duration of treatment), control devices and control groups, outcomes, and adverse events. Three hundred and eight citations were retrieved and 50 studies met our inclusion criteria. We were able to obtain and translate (when necessary) 42 studies. The language of 31 studies was English and 11 studies were in Chinese. The 42 studies reported on 32 different clinical conditions in 6453 patients from 19862007. A variety of magnetic devices, dosing regimens and control devices were used. Thirty seven of 42 studies (88%) reported therapeutic benefit. The only adverse events reported were exacerbation of hot flushes and skin irritation from adhesives. Based on this literature review we believe further investigation of acu-magnet therapy is warranted particularly for the management of diabetes and insomnia. The overall poor quality of the controlled trials precludes any evidence based treatment recommendations at this time.

Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain

Article

Mar 2014

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.

The effectiveness of non-invasive treatments for active myofascial trigger point pain: A systematic review of the literature

Article

Dec 2006
INT J OSTEOPATH MED

Luke Rickards

Background Myofascial pain syndrome associated with active myofascial trigger points is a common diagnosis in patients presenting with symptoms of neuromusculoskeletal pain. The literature details dozens of proposed treatment interventions used to treat myofascial trigger points. However, reliable evidence for the intra- and inter-effectiveness for many of these treatments appears deficient.

Magnet Therapy: What's the Attraction?

Article

Aug 2002
J AM ACAD NURSE PRAC

PurposeTo review the current state of the science of magnet therapy with respect to pain management and to view magnet therapy from a nursing perspective.Data SourcesExtensive review of the world-wide scientific literature and of scientific peer-reviewed journals regarding magnet therapy.Conclusions Magnet therapy is gaining popularity; however, the scientific evidence to support the success of this therapy is lacking. More scientifically sound studies are needed in order to fully understand the effects that magnets can have on the body and the possible benefits or dangers that could result from their use.Implications for PracticeCredibility for advanced practice will be established across disciplines as nurses demonstrate their ability to critically evaluate practices. Alternative therapies are accepted and used by many patients today. While magnet therapy is popular, the scientific evidence to support its use is limited, at best. Advanced practice nurses have more effective treatment modalities in their repertoire and are advised to avoid practices for which efficacy is unsupported.

Non-drug therapies for lower limb muscle cramps

Article

Jan 2012

About one in every three adults are affected by lower limb muscle cramps. For some people, these cramps reduce quality of life, quality of sleep and participation in activities of daily living. Many interventions are available for lower limb cramps, but some are controversial, no treatment guidelines exist, and often people experience no benefit from the interventions prescribed. To assess the effects of non-drug, non-invasive treatments for lower limb cramp. We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (13 September 2011) using the terms: cramp, spasm, contracture, charley horse and lower limb, lower extremity, foot, calf, leg, thigh, gastrocnemius, hamstring, quadriceps. We also searched CENTRAL (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2011) and EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2011) and the reference lists of included studies. There were no language or publication restrictions. All randomised controlled trials of non-drug, non-invasive interventions trialled over at least four weeks for the prevention of lower limb muscle cramps in any group of people. We excluded, for example, surgery, acupuncture and dry-needling, as invasive interventions. We selected only trials that included at least one of the following outcomes: cramp frequency, cramp severity, health-related quality of life, quality of sleep, participation in activities of daily living and adverse outcomes. Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and cross checked data extraction and analysis. A third author was to arbitrate in the event of disagreement. We asked the authors of five trials for information to assist with screening studies for eligibility and received four responses. One trial was eligible for inclusion. All participants were age 60 years or over and had received a repeat prescription from their general practitioner of quinine for nighttime cramps in the preceding three months. This review includes data from only those participants who were advised to continue taking quinine. Forty-nine participants were advised to complete lean-to-wall calf muscle stretching held for 10 s three times per day. Forty-eight participants were allocated to a placebo stretching group. After 12 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference in recalled cramp frequency between groups. No "significant" adverse effect was reported. Limitations in the study's design impede interpretation of the results and clinical applicability. There is limited evidence on which to base clinical decisions regarding the use of non-drug therapies for the treatment of lower limb muscle cramp. Serious methodological limitations in the existing evidence hinder clinical application. There is an urgent need to carefully evaluate many of the commonly recommended and emerging non-drug therapies in well designed randomised controlled trials.

Chiropractic Management of Myofascial Trigger Points and Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Article

Feb 2009

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) and myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) are important aspects of musculoskeletal medicine, including chiropractic. The purpose of this study was to review the most commonly used treatment procedures in chiropractic for MPS and MTrPs. The Scientific Commission of the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) was charged with developing literature syntheses, organized by anatomical region, to evaluate and report on the evidence base for chiropractic care. This article is the outcome of this charge. As part of the CCGPP process, preliminary drafts of these articles were posted on the CCGPP Web site www.ccgpp.org (2006-8) to allow for an open process and the broadest possible mechanism for stakeholder input. PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and databases for systematic reviews and clinical guidelines were searched. Separate searches were conducted for (1) manual palpation and algometry, (2) chiropractic and other manual therapies, and (3) other conservative and complementary/alternative therapies. Studies were screened for relevance and rated using the Oxford Scale and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network rating system. A total of 112 articles were identified. Review of these articles resulted in the following recommendations regarding treatment: Moderately strong evidence supports manipulation and ischemic pressure for immediate pain relief at MTrPs, but only limited evidence exists for long-term pain relief at MTrPs. Evidence supports laser therapy (strong), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, and magnet therapy (all moderate) for MTrPs and MPS, although the duration of relief varies among therapies. Limited evidence supports electrical muscle stimulation, high-voltage galvanic stimulation, interferential current, and frequency modulated neural stimulation in the treatment of MTrPs and MPS. Evidence is weak for ultrasound therapy. Manual-type therapies and some physiologic therapeutic modalities have acceptable evidentiary support in the treatment of MPS and TrPs.

Non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome

Article

Feb 2003

Background: Non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome is frequently offered to those with mild to moderate symptoms. The effectiveness and duration of benefit from non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome remain unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome versus a placebo or other non-surgical, control interventions in improving clinical outcome. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group specialised register (searched March 2002), MEDLINE (searched January 1966 to February 7 2001), EMBASE (searched January 1980 to March 2002), CINAHL (searched January 1983 to December 2001), AMED (searched 1984 to January 2002), Current Contents (January 1993 to March 2002), PEDro and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised studies in any language of participants with the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome who had not previously undergone surgical release. We considered all non-surgical treatments apart from local steroid injection. The primary outcome measure was improvement in clinical symptoms after at least three months following the end of treatment. Data collection and analysis: Three reviewers independently selected the trials to be included. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Studies were rated for their overall quality. Relative risks and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. Results of clinically and statistically homogeneous trials were pooled to provide estimates of the efficacy of non-surgical treatments. Main results: Twenty-one trials involving 884 people were included. A hand brace significantly improved symptoms after four weeks (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.29 to -0.85) and function (WMD -0.55; 95% CI -0.82 to -0.28). In an analysis of pooled data from two trials (63 participants) ultrasound treatment for two weeks was not significantly beneficial. However one trial showed significant symptom improvement after seven weeks of ultrasound (WMD -0.99; 95% CI -1.77 to - 0.21) which was maintained at six months (WMD -1.86; 95% CI -2.67 to -1.05). Four trials involving 193 people examined various oral medications (steroids, diuretics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) versus placebo. Compared to placebo, pooled data for two-week oral steroid treatment demonstrated a significant improvement in symptoms (WMD -7.23; 95% CI -10.31 to -4.14). One trial also showed improvement after four weeks (WMD -10.8; 95% CI -15.26 to -6.34). Compared to placebo, diuretics or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs did not demonstrate significant benefit. In two trials involving 50 people, vitamin B6 did not significantly improve overall symptoms. In one trial involving 51 people yoga significantly reduced pain after eight weeks (WMD -1.40; 95% CI -2.73 to -0.07) compared with wrist splinting. In one trial involving 21 people carpal bone mobilisation significantly improved symptoms after three weeks (WMD -1.43; 95% CI -2.19 to -0.67) compared to no treatment. In one trial involving 50 people with diabetes, steroid and insulin injections significantly improved symptoms over eight weeks compared with steroid and placebo injections. Two trials involving 105 people compared ergonomic keyboards versus control and demonstrated equivocal results for pain and function. Trials of magnet therapy, laser acupuncture, exercise or chiropractic care did not demonstrate symptom benefit when compared to placebo or control. Reviewer's conclusions: Current evidence shows significant short-term benefit from oral steroids, splinting, ultrasound, yoga and carpal bone mobilisation. Other non-surgical treatments do not produce significant benefit. More trials are needed to compare treatments and ascertain the duration of benefit.

Static Magnetic Therapy Does Not Decrease Pain or Opioid Requirements: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial

Article

Mar 2007

A growing multibillion dollar industry markets magnetic necklaces, bracelets, bands, insoles, back braces, mattresses, etc., for pain relief, although there is little evidence for their efficacy. We sought to evaluate the effect of magnetic therapy on pain intensity and opioid requirements in patients with postoperative pain. We designed a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. One-hundred-sixty-five patients older than 12 yr of age were randomized to magnetic (n = 81) or sham therapy (n = 84) upon reporting moderate-to-severe pain in the postanesthesia care unit. Devices were placed over the surgical incision and left in place for 2 h. Patients rated their pain intensity on a 0-10 scale every 10 min and received incremental doses of morphine until pain intensity was < or =4 of 10. Pain intensity levels were similar in both groups. The magnet group had on average 0.04 U more pain intensity (95% confidence interval, -0.4 to 0.5) than the sham group. Opioid requirements also were similar in both groups. The active magnet group required 1.5 mg more morphine (95% confidence interval, -1.8 to 4.0) than the sham magnet group. Magnetic therapy lacks efficacy in controlling acute postoperative pain intensity levels or opioid requirements and should not be recommended for pain relief in this setting.

Static magnets for reducing pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Article

Oct 2007
CAN MED ASSOC J

Static magnets are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain, although evidence of scientific principles or biological mechanisms to support such claims is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical evidence from randomized trials of static magnets for treating pain. Systematic literature searches were conducted from inception to March 2007 for the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the UK National Research Register. All randomized clinical trials of static magnets for treating pain from any cause were considered. Trials were included only if they involved a placebo control or a weak magnet as the control, with pain as an outcome measure. The mean change in pain, as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, was defined as the primary outcome and was used to assess the difference between static magnets and placebo. Twenty-nine potentially relevant trials were identified. Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain with a visual analogue scale were included in the main meta-analysis; analysis of these trials suggested no significant difference in pain reduction (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual analogue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.8 to 5.9 mm, p = 0.29). This result was corroborated by sensitivity analyses excluding trials of acute effects and conditions other than musculoskeletal conditions. Analysis of trials that assessed pain with different scales suggested significant heterogeneity among the trials, which means that pooling these data is unreliable. The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.