ArticleBone & joint research2018
Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation may improve fusion rates in cervical arthrodesis in high-risk populations.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A retrospective, controlled trial evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for fusion success following lumbar spinal surgery.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Review
- Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulators Efficacy for Noninvasive Bone Growth in Spine Surgery.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2021Article
- Effects of focused continuous pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on early tendon-to-bone healing.Bone & joint research · 2021Article
- Three- and 4-Level Lumbar Arthrodesis Using Adjunctive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation: A Multicenter Retrospective Evaluation of Fusion Rates and a Review of the Literature.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Pulsed electromagnetic fields improve the healing process of Achilles tendinopathy: a pilot study in a rat model.Bone & joint research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures.
methodsTwo evaluations were performed that compared fusion rates between PEMF stimulation and a historical control (160 subjects) from the FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study: a
resultsIn separate comparisons of PH PEMF and OL PEMF groups to the historical control group, PEMF treatment significantly (p < 0.05, Fisher's exact test) increased the fusion rate at six and 12 months for certain high-risk subjects who had at least one clinical risk factor of being elderly, a nicotine user, osteoporotic, or diabetic; and for those with at least one clinical risk factor and who received at least a two- or three-level arthrodesis.
conclusionAdjunctive PEMF treatment can be recommended for patients who are at high risk for pseudoarthrosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.