ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026
The effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain and physical functions in patients with soft tissue injuries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Background: Foot and ankle diseases are highly prevalent in both the general and athletic populations, frequently resulting in pain, impaired physical function, and a decreased quality of life. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) therapy has shown beneficial effects on pain by reducing inflammation and improving circulation, yet its efficacy in treating foot and ankle soft-tissue pathologies remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of PEMF therapy on pain and physical function among individuals with foot and ankle soft-tissue pathologies. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across Medline, Embase, Emcare (Ovid Nursing & Allied Health), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Web of Science from database inception to May 15, 2025. Additional searches were performed using Google Scholar and clinical trial registries. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on pain and physical function outcomes. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comprising a total of 243 participants with a mean age of 48.79 years, were included in the review. In three of the four trials, PEMF therapy was administered alongside another conservative intervention, such as shockwave therapy, heel pads, or eccentric exercise, and compared to the conservative treatment alone. Only one study investigated the isolated effects of PEMF therapy vs. sham stimulation. Among the included studies, three reported statistically significant reductions in pain in the intervention groups compared to controls ( Conclusion: PEMF therapy appears safe and effective for reducing pain in individuals with various foot and ankle soft-tissue pathologies. However, the findings on the PEMF therapy in improving physical function remain inconclusive. Future research should focus on a large-scale, standardised setting, including the PEMF therapy protocol, to evaluate the efficacy of PEMF therapy on both pain and functional outcomes in this specific population. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251076499, PROSPERO CRD420251076499.
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.