ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2019
The Effect of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field and Combined Magnetic Field Exposure Time on Healing of a Rabbit Tibial Osteotomy.
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gathering Evidence to Leverage Musculoskeletal Magnetic Stimulation Towards Clinical Applicability.Small science · 2024Article
- Signalling pathways underlying pulsed electromagnetic fields in bone repair.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Effects of different intensities of intermittent pneumatic soft-tissue compression on bone defect repair.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study compares effectiveness of two commercially available signals, Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) and Combined Magnetic Field (CMF) clinical signals, to stimulate bone healing in rabbit tibial osteotomies. Methods: One millimeter osteotomies in New Zealand White rabbits, stabilized with external fixators, were exposed daily to either signal for 30 minutes, three or six hours. Osteotomized sham controls received no signal exposure. Analyses of torsional strength, periosteal callus area and fracture healing stage demonstrated dose responses to increasing daily exposures to both signals. Results: By 14 days torsional strength increased over shams in the three and six hour-treated groups, significant only for the six hour groups (p<0.05). By 21 days both three and six hour-treated groups were significantly stronger than shams (p<0.05, p<0.005) and the PEMF 30 minute treated group also showed significance (p<0.05). PEMF versus CMF-treated groups were not different at any exposure time. Conclusions: Both CMF and PEMF signals were most effective in this model when used for six hours per day. Clinical Relevance: In this model we demonstrate that though both PEMF and CMF are "bioactive" and promote healing at shorter and longer exposure dosages, there exists an "optimal" threshold effect of 6 hours/day electromagnetic wave stimulation for bone healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32577103PMC7047300W3038097652What 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.