Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain, stiffness and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of classical pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing classical pulsed electromagnetic field with placebo for patients with knee osteoarthritis were included. Data for primary outcomes, including pain, stiffness and physical function, were extracted. Data from 8 randomized controlled trials involving 421 patients were pooled. RESULTS: Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy had an effect on improving physical function (weighted mean difference; WMD = -5.28, 95% confidence interval; 95% CI -9.45 to -1.11, p = 0.01), but showed no advantage in the reduction of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (WMD = -7.80, 95% CI -16.08 to 0.47, p = 0.06), WOMAC pain score (WMD = -1.06, 95% CI -2.30 to 0.17, p = 0.09), visual analogue scale pain score (WMD=-0.88, 95% CI -2.06 to 0.31, p = 0.15) or WOMAC stiffness score (WMD = -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09, p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy is beneficial for improving physical function despite having no advantage in treating pain and stiffness. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and determine the optimal parameters and treatment regimen for pulsed electromagnetic field therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".