MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on bone fractures: a systematic review update

2024· review· en· W4403299695 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Picelli, Rita Di Censo, Sofia Tomasello, Dalila Scaturro, Giulia Letizia Mauro, Nicola Smania, Mirko Filippetti

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Fractures are common bone injuries, which have a great burden on global health. Fracture healing is a long-term process that may be influenced by a number of factors. The 10-15% of all bone fractures may be complicated by an impaired healing (i.e. delayed union or non-union). The application of weak electromagnetic fields has been proposed to have different effects on bones such as enhancing proliferation - orientation - migration of osteoblast-like cells and supporting osteogenic differentiation in bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Despite the amount of evidence on cellular and histological effects, to date the application of pulsed electromagnetic fields has not achieved univocal consensus in daily practice. The purpose of this systematic review update is to research, select, analyze and summarize the most recent scientific evidence regarding the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of acute bone fractures. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review using the following MeSH terms (Magnetic Field Therapy; Electromagnetic Fields; Bone and Bones; Fractures, Bone; Fractures Healing) and strings {("Magnetic Field Therapy [mh]" OR "Electromagnetic Fields [mh]) OR "magnetotherapy" OR "pulsed electromagnetic field") and ("Fractures, bone [mh]" OR "Bone and Bones [mh]") and ("Fractures Healing [mh]")} was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and Scopus electronic databases. Only full articles published in English between January 2014 and December 2022 were considered. Eligibility criteria were defined according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study (PICOS) design framework. Case reports, case series, uncontrolled studies and expert opinions were excluded. All articles were checked for quality and risk of bias. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Three randomized controlled trials were included (197 patients in total). None of the studies found significant effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the acute bone healing process. Contradictory results about pain relief emerged. Only one study showed a transitory positive effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on strength and range of motion recovery in patients with acute bone fracture. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review update does not support the use of pulsed electromagnetic fields for improving the bone healing process in patients with acute fractures. Controversial evidence was found about the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on pain and functional recovery. Considering the scant and heterogenous literature published to date, which represents a limit for our conclusion, further studies with rigorous and high-quality methodology are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207