Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy in treating osteoarthritis (OA).Design Meta-analysis.Data sources PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched through 13 October 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018-12-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e022879.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832574351409414144 |
|---|---|
| author | Ziying Wu Xiang Ding Guanghua Lei Chao Zeng Jie Wei Jiatian Li Hui Li Tuo Yang Yang Cui Yilin Xiong Yilun Wang Dongxing Xie |
| author_facet | Ziying Wu Xiang Ding Guanghua Lei Chao Zeng Jie Wei Jiatian Li Hui Li Tuo Yang Yang Cui Yilin Xiong Yilun Wang Dongxing Xie |
| author_sort | Ziying Wu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy in treating osteoarthritis (OA).Design Meta-analysis.Data sources PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched through 13 October 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials compared the efficacy of PEMF therapy with sham control in patients with OA.Data extraction and synthesis Pain, function, adverse effects and characteristics of participants were extracted. RevMan V.5.2 was used to perform statistical analyses.Results Twelve trials were included, among which ten trials involved knee OA, two involved cervical OA and one involved hand OA. The PEMF group showed more significant pain alleviation than the sham group in knee OA (standardised mean differences (SMD)=−0.54, 95% CI −1.04 to –0.04, p=0.03) and hand OA (SMD=−2.85, 95% CI −3.65 to –2.04, p<0.00001), but not in cervical OA. Similarly, comparing with the sham–control treatment, significant function improvement was observed in the PEMF group in both knee and hand OA patients (SMD=−0.34, 95% CI −0.53 to –0.14, p=0.0006, and SMD=−1.49, 95% CI −2.12 to –0.86, p<0.00001, respectively), but not in patients with cervical OA. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the exposure duration <=30 min per session exhibited better effects compared with the exposure duration >30 min per session. Three trials reported adverse events, and the combined results showed that there was no significant difference between PEMF and the sham group.Conclusions PEMF could alleviate pain and improve physical function for patients with knee and hand OA, but not for patients with cervical OA. Meanwhile, a short PEMF treatment duration (within 30 min) may achieve more favourable efficacy. However, given the limited number of study available in hand and cervical OA, the implication of this conclusion should be cautious for hand and cervical OA. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0e771a847a894933acd3b2133939c662 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-12-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-0e771a847a894933acd3b2133939c6622025-02-01T17:40:12ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552018-12-0181210.1136/bmjopen-2018-022879Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysisZiying Wu0Xiang Ding1Guanghua Lei2Chao Zeng3Jie Wei4Jiatian Li5Hui Li6Tuo Yang7Yang Cui8Yilin Xiong9Yilun Wang10Dongxing Xie111 Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China2 Key Laboratory of Aging-related Bone and Joint Diseases Prevention and Treatment, Ministry of Education, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China1 Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China2 Department of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China1 Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, ChinaDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, The People’s Hospital of Baoan Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China10 Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, ChinaGuangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China1 Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China1 Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, ChinaObjective To investigate the efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy in treating osteoarthritis (OA).Design Meta-analysis.Data sources PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched through 13 October 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials compared the efficacy of PEMF therapy with sham control in patients with OA.Data extraction and synthesis Pain, function, adverse effects and characteristics of participants were extracted. RevMan V.5.2 was used to perform statistical analyses.Results Twelve trials were included, among which ten trials involved knee OA, two involved cervical OA and one involved hand OA. The PEMF group showed more significant pain alleviation than the sham group in knee OA (standardised mean differences (SMD)=−0.54, 95% CI −1.04 to –0.04, p=0.03) and hand OA (SMD=−2.85, 95% CI −3.65 to –2.04, p<0.00001), but not in cervical OA. Similarly, comparing with the sham–control treatment, significant function improvement was observed in the PEMF group in both knee and hand OA patients (SMD=−0.34, 95% CI −0.53 to –0.14, p=0.0006, and SMD=−1.49, 95% CI −2.12 to –0.86, p<0.00001, respectively), but not in patients with cervical OA. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the exposure duration <=30 min per session exhibited better effects compared with the exposure duration >30 min per session. Three trials reported adverse events, and the combined results showed that there was no significant difference between PEMF and the sham group.Conclusions PEMF could alleviate pain and improve physical function for patients with knee and hand OA, but not for patients with cervical OA. Meanwhile, a short PEMF treatment duration (within 30 min) may achieve more favourable efficacy. However, given the limited number of study available in hand and cervical OA, the implication of this conclusion should be cautious for hand and cervical OA.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e022879.full |
| spellingShingle | Ziying Wu Xiang Ding Guanghua Lei Chao Zeng Jie Wei Jiatian Li Hui Li Tuo Yang Yang Cui Yilin Xiong Yilun Wang Dongxing Xie Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis BMJ Open |
| title | Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis |
| title_full | Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis |
| title_short | Efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis |
| title_sort | efficacy and safety of the pulsed electromagnetic field in osteoarthritis a meta analysis |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e022879.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ziyingwu efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT xiangding efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT guanghualei efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT chaozeng efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT jiewei efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT jiatianli efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT huili efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT tuoyang efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT yangcui efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT yilinxiong efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT yilunwang efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis AT dongxingxie efficacyandsafetyofthepulsedelectromagneticfieldinosteoarthritisametaanalysis |