Utilisateur:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic/champsEM

Int J Electron Healthc. 2008;4(3-4):339-49. Static magnetotherapy for the treatment of insomnia. Shieh YY, Tsai FY.

Department of Radiological Sciences, School of Medicine, UCIrvine Medical Center, Orange CA 92868, USA. yshieh@uci.edu Abstract Magnets have been used for centuries to treat a number of physical disorders. The vast majority of research, however, on static magnet therapy for insomnia has been confined to the auricular type of therapy, with publications limited to Chinese journals. Most of these studies have depended on the subjective self-assessment of participants rather than objective scientific measurements. In this study, the authors report the positive preliminary results of insomnia treatment using pillows with embedded magnets, magnetic insoles and TriPhase bracelets. The analysis is based on objective actigraphic and polysomnographic data. A theory of accelerated transition from wakefulness to sleep is proposed to explain the process of insomnia relief through low-strength static magnetic fields. Analysis by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is used to further investigate the theory.

PMID: 19174368 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

J Altern Complement Med. 2005 Jun;11(3):495-509. A critical review of randomized controlled trials of static magnets for pain relief. Eccles NK.

The Chiron Clinic, London, UK. drnyjon@hotmail.com Abstract OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to establish whether there is evidence for or against the efficacy of static magnets to produce analgesia.

METHODS: A systematic literature review was undertaken of studies that compared the use of static magnets with an appropriate control for the treatment of pain. Study methods, their quality, and outcome were also reviewed.

RESULTS: Overall, 13 of the 21 studies reported a significant analgesic effect due to static magnets. Of the 18 better quality studies with 3 points or more on the quality assessment, 11 were positive and six were negative, and in one there was a non-significant trend towards a positive analgesic effect. In two of the negative studies, there are concerns over adequacy of magnet power for the type of pain, and in the other study of duration of exposure to the magnetic field. If these two studies are excluded on the grounds of inadequate treatment, then 11 out of 15 (73.3%) of the better quality studies demonstrated a positive effect of static magnets in achieving analgesia across a broad range of different types of pain (neuropathic, inflammatory, musculoskeletal, fibromyalgic, rheumatic, and postsurgical).

CONCLUSIONS: The weight of evidence from published, well-conducted controlled trials suggests that static magnetic fields are able to induce analgesia.

PMID: 15992236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citationsRemove from clipboard

Publication Types, MeSH Terms 2. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Jun;14(5):577-82. Static magnetic field therapy: dosimetry considerations. Colbert AP, Markov MS, Souder JS.

Helfgott Research Institute, National College of Natural Medicine, Portland, OR 97201, USA. acolbert@ncnm.edu Abstract The widespread use of static magnetic field (SMF) therapy as a self-care physical intervention has led to the conduct of numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A recent systematic review of SMF trials for pain reduction concluded that the evidence does not support the use of permanent magnets for pain relief. We argue that this conclusion is unwarranted if the SMF dosage was inadequate or inappropriate for the clinical condition treated. The purpose of this communication is to (1) provide a rationale and an explanation for each of 10 essential SMF dosing parameters that should be considered when conducting trials of SMF therapy, and (2) advocate for the conduct of Phase I studies to optimize SMF dosimetry for each condition prior to implementing a large-scale RCT. A previous critical review of SMF dosimetry in 56 clinical studies found that reporting SMF dosages in a majority of those studies was of such poor quality that the magnetic field exposure at the target tissue could not be characterized. Without knowing what magnetic field actually reached the target, it is impossible to judge dosage adequacy. In order to quantify SMF exposure at the site of pathology (target tissue/s), that site must be clearly named; the distance of the permanent magnet surface from the target must be delineated; the physical parameters of the applied permanent magnet must be described; and the dosing regimen must be precisely reported. If the SMF dosimetry is inadequate, any inferences drawn from reported negative findings are questionable.

PMID: 18532897 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citationsRemove from clipboard

Publication Types, MeSH Terms 3. CMAJ. 2007 Sep 25;177(7):736-42. Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Pittler MH, Brown EM, Ernst E.

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK. max.pittler@pms.ac.uk Comment in:

Evid Based Nurs. 2008 Apr;11(2):49. CMAJ. 2008 Jan 29;178(3):327; author reply 327. Abstract BACKGROUND: Static magnets are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain, although evidence of scientific principles or biological mechanisms to support such claims is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical evidence from randomized trials of static magnets for treating pain.

METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted from inception to March 2007 for the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the UK National Research Register. All randomized clinical trials of static magnets for treating pain from any cause were considered. Trials were included only if they involved a placebo control or a weak magnet as the control, with pain as an outcome measure. The mean change in pain, as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, was defined as the primary outcome and was used to assess the difference between static magnets and placebo.

RESULTS: Twenty-nine potentially relevant trials were identified. Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain with a visual analogue scale were included in the main meta-analysis; analysis of these trials suggested no significant difference in pain reduction (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual analogue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.8 to 5.9 mm, p = 0.29). This result was corroborated by sensitivity analyses excluding trials of acute effects and conditions other than musculoskeletal conditions. Analysis of trials that assessed pain with different scales suggested significant heterogeneity among the trials, which means that pooling these data is unreliable.

INTERPRETATION: The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.

PMID: 17893349 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC1976658Free PMC

Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2008 Nov;29 Suppl 1:161-201. Magnetotherapy. Zyss T.

Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital in Kraków Collegium Medicum Jagellonian University, Cracow, Poland. mzzyss@cyf-kr.edu.pl Abstract Since antiquity, the phenomenon of magnetism has been known, and it has been tried for therapeutic purposes. Through history, people have made use of both natural sources of magnetic fields (magnetic iron ore) and artificial ones (magnets, electromagnets). It was as late as the 19th century that we started to produce time-varying magnetic fields, making numerous observations about its impact on humans, the nervous system included. A majority of these observations were cognitive in nature. There are, however, studies aimed at assessing the therapeutic results of the influence of magnetic fields, particularly of low frequencies. In terms of magnetotherapy with the use of a low-induction magnetic field, there are serious doubts concerning its effectiveness in general, including therapy for mental disorders. The year 1985 witnessed the introduction of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) into medical practice as a diagnostic tool in neurology as well as in basic neurophysiologic and neuropsychological investigations. The 1990s began the epoch of investigations into possible applications of TMS in therapy of mental disorders, particularly depression. This work presents critical remarks and limitations of TMS, such as findings that its effectiveness is not particularly high. The traditional fixed stimulation of a definite area of the patient's head may lead to irritation of structures that, in a specific patient, may not be responsible for the symptoms of depression. The effectiveness could be improved only with the use of neuronavigation and prestimulation via functional neuroimaging diagnostics of the brain, which, however, would make TMS expensive and less practical.

PMID: 19029874 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE