Effects of PEMF on patients with osteoarthritis: Results of a prospective, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) in a double blind study on patients with knee joint osteoarthritis. The MAGCELL ARTHRO electrode-less therapy delivered a sinusoidal magnetic field, varying in frequency between 4 and 12 Hz. In 1 cm tissue depth, magnetic flux density was 105 mT. A total of n = 57 patients were randomly assigned to the verum, PEMF or placebo group (placebo device). Their average age was 61.6 ± 12.0 years. According to American College of Rheumatology criteria the osteoarthritis level was 2.8 ± 0.8. Treatment was performed twice a day for 5 min over a period of 18 days. Treatment with the MAGCELL device versus control (sham exposed) showed a highly significant reduction in pain (P < 0.001), a significant reduction in stiffness (P = 0.032) and a significant reduction in disability in daily activities (P = 0.005) according to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scales-with a good overall treatment tolerance. In the placebo group there was no evidence of a significant change between the initial and final examination in any of the three above-mentioned WOMAC scales. Results of this partly randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study show clinically at any rate, that use of PEMF lead to highly significant better results in the treatment group compared to the placebo group with regard to the total WOMAC global score and especially for visual analogue scale. Patient assessment of the "effectiveness" was rated in 29.5% as very good and good in 27.3% compared to 0.0% and 15.4% in controls. This therapy is thus a useful complementary treatment option with no side effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".