Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30177406›Full record

Trial reportBrazilian journal of physical therapy

Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on nonspecific low back pain patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Ahmed Mohamed Elshiwi, Hamada Ahmed Hamada, Dalia Mosaad, Ibrahim Mohammed A Ragab, Ghada Mohamed Koura, Saud Mashi Alrawaili

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ahmed Mohamed ElshiwiDepartment of Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders and its Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hamada Ahmed HamadaDepartment of Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: Hamada.Ahmed@pt.cu.edu.eg.
Dalia MosaadDepartment of Basic Science, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ibrahim Mohammed A RagabDepartment of Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders and its Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.
Ghada Mohamed KouraDepartment of Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders and its Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; Department of Medical Rehabilitation, Faculty of Applied Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Saud Mashi AlrawailiDepartment of Physical Therapy and Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam, Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Cairo University · EGBeni-Suef University · EGKing Khalid University · SAPrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFurther research on pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) effects on the different conditions of low back pain was warranted due to lack of studies in this area.

objectivesTo investigate the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy with 50Hz frequency, with low intensity of 20Gauss compared to conventional non-invasive treatment modalities in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

methodsDesign - A prospective, randomized, patient-blinded, controlled trial. Setting - The study was conducted at Outpatient Physiotherapy Clinic in Cairo, Egypt. The study was conducted between May 2015 and September 2016. Participants - Fifty participants with non-specific low back pain enrolled into experimental and control groups. Interventions - The experimental group received the Conventional physical therapy Protocol as well as magnetic field, while the control group received the same Conventional physical therapy and sham electromagnetic field. Both groups received 12 sessions over 4 weeks' period. Outcome measures - Primary outcome measures was pain intensity while the secondary outcome measures were disability and lumbar range of motion - ROM. There were no adverse events occurred during the study.

resultsFifty participants with non-specific low back pain (control group n=25; experimental group n=25) were randomized. There were significant between-group differences in pain scores (mean difference - MD 1.52; 95%CI -0.34 to 3.35), function disability (MD 8.14; 95%CI 6.5 to 9.96), Range of Motion (ROM) of lumbar flexion (MD -1.27; 95%CI -1.09 to -1.45), ROM of lumbar extension (MD -1.1; 95%CI -0.97 to -1.23), ROM of lumbar right side bending (MD 8.2; 95%CI 6.56 to 9.84) and ROM of lumbar left side bending (MD 10.4; 95%CI 8.81 to 11.99) in favour of the experimental group.

conclusionAdding pulsed electromagnetic field to Conventional physical therapy Protocol yields superior clinical improvement in pain, functional disability, and lumbar ROM in patients with non-specific low back pain than Conventional physical therapy alone.

Indexed as

Electromagnetic FieldsHumansLow Back PainLumbosacral RegionPhysical Therapy ModalitiesProspective StudiesRange of Motion, ArticularConventional physical therapy programNon-specific low back painPulsed electromagnetic field

Identifiers

PMID30177406
PMCPMC6531640
OpenAlexW2888280749

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.