In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field(PEMF) therapy on pain, disability, psychological state, and quality of life in cervical disc herniation.
Materials and methods
Patients were randomly divided into two groups, including Group 1, which received a therapy consisting of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), hot pack (HP), and PEMF, and Group 2, which received a magnetic field (sham magnetic field) without current flow in addition to TENS and HP therapy. Pain was assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS, 0–10 cm). The other outcome measures were function (Neck Pain and Disability Scale), anxiety-depressive mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and quality of life (Nottingham Health Profile). All evaluations were performed at baseline, in the 3rd week, and in the 12th week after treatment.
A significant improvement was found in the neck pain, disability, depression, anxiety, and quality of life scores of both groups after treatment when compared to those before treatment. However, in the comparison between changes within groups, significant improvements were determined only in the VAS and Nottingham Health Profile sleep subparameter in the 12th week after treatment compared to those before treatment.
PEMF therapy in cervical disc herniation can be used safely in routine treatment in addition to conventional physical therapy modalities.
Objective: Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a potentially useful treatment for osteoarthritis (OA), but its effectiveness is still controversial. This study aimed to examine the effects of PEMF therapy and PEMF parameters on symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with OA.
Methods: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, clinical trial registers, and reference lists were searched until April 2019. This study examined randomized, placebo-controlled trials, patients with OA, symptom and/or QOL related outcomes, and articles published in English. Two authors extracted data and completed quality assessment.
Results: Sixteen studies were included in our systematic review, while 15 studies with complete data were included in the meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was the standardized mean difference, which was equal to the treatment effect in the PEMF group minus the treatment effect in the placebo group divided by the pooled standard deviation. For pain, the standardized mean difference was 1.06 (95% CI = 0.61 to 1.51), for stiffness 0.37 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.67), for function 0.46 (95% CI = 0.14 to 0.78), and for QOL 1.49 (95% CI = -0.06 to 3.04). PEMF parameters did not influence symptoms.
Conclusions: Compared with placebo, there was a beneficial effect of PEMF therapy on pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with OA. Duration of treatment may not be a critical factor in pain management. Further studies are required to confirm the effects of PEMF therapy on QOL.
Impact: Our study suggests that PEMF therapy has clinically significant effects on pain in patients with OA. The current evidence was limited to the short-term effects of PEMF therapy.