ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Combined Double-Coil and Handheld rPMS in Low Back Pain: An Observational Case Series Based on Routine Clinical Practice.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the high prevalence of low back pain (LBP), evidence supporting the clinical effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) remains limited. A combined double-coil and handheld rPMS approach may enhance the therapeutic potential of this technology. This observational case series analyzed prospectively collected routine clinical data from 37 patients treated with a combined protocol of static double-coil lumbar rPMS and dynamic handheld lower-limb rPMS. Pain intensity, disability, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 1-month follow-up. Statistical analyses were complemented by an evaluation of clinical relevance using established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. Significant improvements were observed across all outcomes. Pain decreased by 62.5% post-treatment and by 87.5% at follow-up, while disability was reduced by 86.8% and 92.1%, respectively. Quality of life scores approximately doubled. High MCID responder rates and consistent within-group changes were observed; however, given the single-arm design without a control group, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory evidence of treatment effectiveness. This combined rPMS approach was feasible and well tolerated in routine clinical practice and was associated with clinically meaningful within-group improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. Further controlled studies are warranted.
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.