Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11869668›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Electromagnetic fields for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

J Hulme, V Robinson, R DeBie, G Wells, M Judd, P Tugwell

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Electromagnetic fields for treating osteoarthritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Electrotherapy for neck pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. An Overview of Biofield Devices.Global advances in health and medicine · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Life without COX 2 inhibitors.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006
    Article
  20. [Physical therapy of osteoarthritis].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2005
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J HulmeCochrane Collaborating Center, Center for Global Health, Institute of Population Health - University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5. jhulme@uottawa.ca
V Robinson
R DeBie
G Wells
M Judd
P Tugwell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the focus for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment shifts away from drug therapy, we consider the effectiveness of pulsed electric stimulation which is proven to stimulate cartilage growth on the cellular level.

objectives1)To assess the effectiveness of pulsed electric stimulation for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). 2) To assess the most effective and efficient method of applying an electromagnetic field, through pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) or electric stimulation, as well as the consideration of length of treatment, dosage, and the frequency of the applications. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) up to and including 2001. This included searches through the coordinating offices of the trials registries of the Cochrane Field of Physical and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group for further published and unpublished articles. The electronic search was complemented by hand searches and experts in the area. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared PEMF or direct electric stimulation against placebo in patients with OA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included in the review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (JH,VR) and extracted the data using pre-developed extraction forms for the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by the same reviewers using a validated scale (Jadad 1996). Osteoarthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications according to OMERACT guidelines (Bellamy 1997) and additional secondary outcomes considered. MAIN

resultsOnly three studies with a total of 259 OA patients were included in the review. Electrical stimulation therapy had a small to moderate effect on outcomes for knee OA, all statistically significant with clinical benefit ranging from 13-23% greater with active treatment than with placebo. Only 2 outcomes for cervical OA were significantly different with PEMF treatment and no clinical benefit can be reported with changes of 12% or less. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that electrical stimulation therapy may provide significant improvements for knee OA, but further studies are required to confirm whether the statistically significant results shown in these trials confer to important benefits.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyClinical Trials as TopicElectromagnetic FieldsHumansOsteoarthritis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.