Evaluating the impact of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) on physical therapy outcomes for musculoskeletal and neurological disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) is an innovative neuromodulation technique that has gained attention for its potential therapeutic effects in both musculoskeletal and neurological disorders. By delivering pulsed magnetic fields to peripheral nerves, rPMS modulates neural activity, alleviates pain, and enhances motor function, offering a non-invasive alternative to conventional treatments. This systematic review synthesizes the current evidence on the application of rPMS across a range of musculoskeletal conditions (eg., low back pain, myofascial syndrome, etc.) and neurological disorders (e.g., stroke, neuropathies, etc.). To review the current evidence on repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), focusing on its therapeutic applications, mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy, and future directions in neuromodulation. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase from January 2000 to October 2023 using keywords related to Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) and its applications in musculoskeletal and neurological disorders. Studies included were RCTs, CCTs, or observational studies reporting on rPMS treatment protocols and outcomes such as pain reduction, motor function, and functional improvement. Data extraction was performed by four independent reviewers, focusing on study characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence strength evaluated using the GRADE system. Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) has demonstrated therapeutic benefits in both musculoskeletal and neurological conditions. In musculoskeletal disorders, rPMS significantly reduced pain, improved functional outcomes, and enhanced joint mobility in conditions. It also improved muscle strength and range of motion in Rotator Cuff Injury and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome patients, while enhancing proprioception and postural control in patients with musculoskeletal imbalances. In neurological disorders, rPMS improved motor function and promoted neuroplasticity in neurological patients. It also reduced tremor amplitude, alleviated pain, improved muscle strength, reduced spasticity in neurological conditions. These findings support rPMS as a promising neuromodulation therapy across a range of conditions. rPMS shows promising potential as a non-invasive therapeutic tool for managing a wide range of musculoskeletal and neurological disorders. However, further research is needed to refine treatment protocols, explore its mechanisms, and assess long-term efficacy for broader clinical application.
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 | 0.017 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".