SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025
Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for pain, disability, and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and cortical mechanisms of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation in non-specific neck and low back pain: a prospective, two-center, randomized, sham-controlled fNIRS study.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Trial
- Toward Standardized Protocols: Determining Optimal Stimulation Volumes for 5 Hz Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) of the Tibial Nerve-A Controlled Exploratory Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Physical Agent Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Myofascial pain in older adults: a geroscience-informed framework integrating precision geriatrics and digital therapeutics.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRepetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive and painless approach developed for therapeutic intervention in clinical rehabilitation. Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) originates from the musculoskeletal system and leads to disability and fear of pain. It may be an option for CMP treatment, but its effectiveness is still unclear. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, PEDro, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for relevant literatures according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria on May 26 EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The methodology quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2.0) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. The cumulative effects of available data were processed for a meta-analysis using RevMan software. Eight RCTs with 177 participants were included. All studies were assessed as having some concerns regarding the risk of bias. rPMS significantly reduced pain intensity compared with the control, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) across visual analogue scales (VAS) and numerical rating scales (NRS) was -1.16 (95% CI: -1.56 to -0.76, I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that rPMS is an effective method for relieving pain and improving disability in the treatment of CMP, especially for patients with CLBP.
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.