ReviewNeurology international2026
Effectiveness of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Neurology international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeuropathic pain represents a substantial global burden with limited effective therapeutic options. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) therapy has emerged as a potential non-invasive adjuvant, though clinical evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated PEMF efficacy and safety, specifically analyzing the influence of etiology and stimulation parameters.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251184151), five databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS) were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing PEMF versus sham. Risk of bias was assessed via Cochrane RoB 2, and heterogeneity was explored through detailed subgroup analyses.
resultsThirteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria (
conclusionsThe PEMF evidence base for neuropathic pain is currently highly fragmented. Extreme heterogeneity and publication bias render "one-size-fits-all" efficacy estimates invalid and potentially misleading. Instead, our data reveals a critical etiological divergence: PEMF appears highly effective for spinal/radicular pathology, likely due to the mechanical nature of the lesion, but demonstrates limited efficacy for diffuse peripheral neuropathy. Future research must abandon generic protocols in favor of etiology-specific trials, prioritizing high-frequency parameters and rigorous bias control.
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.