Advertisement
ADVANCED SEARCH

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Résumé Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pittler, M. H. Articles by Ernst, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pittler, M. H., MD PhD Articles by Ernst, E., MD PhD Related Collections Other Complementary Medicine & Alternative Therapies Pain Français Related Articles

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

From Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK (all authors)

Correspondence to: Dr. Max H. Pittler, Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Rd., Exeter EX2 4NT, UK; fax +44 1392 427562; max.pittler{at}pms.ac.uk

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Interpretation: 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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. W. McCarthy PhD Controls in studies of magnetism Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 29, 2008; 178(3): 327 - 327. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. H. Pittler MD PhD Controls in studies of magnetism Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 29, 2008; 178(3): 327 - 327. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Rumbaut and D. Mirkovic Magnetic therapy for edema in inflammation: a physiological assessment Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, January 1, 2008; 294(1): H19 - H20. [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

HOME	CURRENT ISSUE	PAST ISSUES	COLLECTIONS	HELP	SEARCH
Copyright 1995-2007, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p) All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.