Peripheral magnetic stimulation for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To provide a systematic review of the literature on the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, Web of Science, and ProQuest was conducted from inception to July 2023 to identify studies of any design published in English language that enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) that received PMS for treatment of a chronic peripheral neuropathic pain disorder (pain > 3 months). Results Twenty‐three studies were identified which included 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), five case series, two case reports, and one non‐randomized trial. PMS regimens varied across studies and ranged from 5 to 240 min per session over 1 day to 1 year of treatment. Results across included studies were mixed, with some studies suggesting benefits while others showing no significant differences. Of nine placebo‐controlled RCTs, four reported statistically significant findings in favor of PMS use. In the meta‐analysis, PMS significantly reduced pain scores compared to control within 0–1 month of use (mean difference −1.64 on a 0–10 numeric rating scale, 95% confidence interval −2.73 to −0.56, p = 0.003, I 2 = 94%, 7 studies [264 participants], very low quality of evidence), but not at the 1–3 months and >3 months of PMS use (very low and low quality of evidence, respectively). Minimal to no adverse effects were reported with PMS use. Discussion There is limited and low‐quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on PMS usage, however, the available data is encouraging, especially for short‐term applications of this novel modality. Large high‐quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish definitive efficacy and safety effects of PMS.
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 | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".