Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24338431›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Electromagnetic fields for treating osteoarthritis.

Shasha Li, Bo Yu, Dong Zhou, Chengqi He, Qi Zhuo, Jennifer M Hulme

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy and characteristics of physiotherapy interventions in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Electrotherapy modalities for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  7. Effects of Sanqi Shengyu External Application Cream and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Knee Osteoarthritis in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advanced Piezoelectric Materials, Devices, and Systems for Orthopedic Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Bioelectricity in dental medicine: a narrative review.Biomedical engineering online · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Shasha LiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No.37 Guo-xue-xiang Street, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China, 610041.
Bo Yu
Dong Zhou
Chengqi He
Qi Zhuo
Jennifer M Hulme
Sichuan University · CNChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CNMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002. Osteoarthritis is a disease that affects the synovial joints, causing degeneration and destruction of hyaline cartilage and subchondral bone. Electromagnetic field therapy is currently used by physiotherapists and may promote growth and repair of bone and cartilage. It is based on principles of physics which include Wolff's law, the piezoelectric effect and the concept of streaming potentials.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of electromagnetic fields for the treatment of osteoarthritis as compared to placebo or sham. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), PreMEDLINE for trials published before 1966, MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2013, CINAHL and PEDro up to and including October 2013. Electronic searches were complemented by handsearches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis, with four or more weeks treatment duration. We included papers in any language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review and resolved differences by consensus with a third review author. We extracted data using pre-developed data extraction forms. The same review authors assessed the risk of bias of the trials independently using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We extracted outcomes for osteoarthritis from the publications according to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) guidelines. We expressed results for continuous outcome measures as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We pooled dichotomous outcome measures using risk ratio (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT). MAIN

resultsNine studies with a total of 636 participants with osteoarthritis were included, six of which were added in this update of the review. Selective outcome reporting was unclear in all nine included studies due to inadequate reporting of study design and conduct, and there was high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data in three studies. The overall risk of bias across the nine studies was low for the other domains.Participants who were randomised to electromagnetic field treatment rated their pain relief 15.10 points more on a scale of 0 to 100 (MD 15.10, 95% CI 9.08 to 21.13; absolute improvement 15%) after 4 to 26 weeks' treatment compared with placebo. Electromagnetic field treatment had no statistically significant effect on physical function (MD 4.55, 95% CI -2.23 to 11.32; absolute improvement 4.55%) based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scale from 0 to 100 after 12 to 26 weeks' treatment. We also found no statistically significant difference in quality of life on a scale from 0 to 100 (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.54; absolute improvement 0.09%) after four to six weeks' treatment, based on the SF-36. No data were available for analysis of radiographic changes. Safety was evaluated in four trials including up to 288 participants: there was no difference in the experience of any adverse event after 4 to 12 weeks of treatment compared with placebo (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92). There was no difference in participants who withdrew because of adverse events (measured in one trial) after four weeks of treatment (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.92). No participants experienced any serious adverse events. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that electromagnetic field treatment may provide moderate benefit for osteoarthritis sufferers in terms of pain relief. Further studies are required to confirm whether this treatment confers clinically important benefits in terms of physical function and quality of life. Our conclusions are unchanged from the previous review conducted in 2002.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyElectromagnetic FieldsHumansMagnetic Field TherapyOsteoarthritisRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24338431
PMCPMC13080287
OpenAlexW1537658038

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.