ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Insights into bone and cartilage responses to pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation: a review with quantitative comparisons.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracorporeal magnetotransduction therapy (EMTT) for management of musculoskeletal disorders: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Combined in vitro microcurrent stimulation and celecoxib suppress NF-κB/NLRP3 signaling and cartilage catabolism in human chondrocytes.Immunologic research · 2026Article
- Article
- Advances of piezoelectric biomaterials in bone defect repair: The role of direct and inverse piezoelectric effect.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- SAR-Based Thermal Assessment of Dielectrophoretic Pulsed Electromagnetic Stimulation in Tibia Fractures with Metallic Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enhanced Osteogenic and Neurogenic Differentiation of Dental Pulp Stem Cells by Micro-Current Stimulation and Chitosan-Poly(Ethylene Glycol) Blended Calcium Phosphate Cement.ACS applied bio materials · 2026Article
- Pulsed electromagnetic field effectively improves musculoskeletal degeneration and inflammation levels in a rat model of osteosarcopenia: an experimental study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Non-chemical, chemical, and biochemical, endocrine disruptors: biphasic health effects and pathophysiological insights.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone fractures and cartilage pathologies represent a heavy socioeconomic burden for the national healthcare systems worldwide. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation has become a widely recognized treatment for enhancing bone fracture healing and reducing tissue inflammation, thereby supporting bone tissue regeneration. More recently, its effectiveness in treating cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis has also been demonstrated. However, the effects of PEMF, particularly the underlying mechanisms related to the activation of specific signaling pathways, are not yet fully known neither correlated with the specific PEMF parameters applied. As a result, standardized protocols for PEMF treatment are lacking in clinical practice, leading to empirical application of PEMF stimulation and heterogeneity in treatment protocols. For these reasons, over the past three decades, the biological effects of PEMF on bone and cartilage tissues have been extensively investigated through both
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.