4.2 Review

Peripheral magnetic stimulation for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PAIN PRACTICE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13332

Keywords

meta-analysis; neuropathic pain; peripheral magnetic stimulation; pulsed electromagnetic fields; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides a systematic review of the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain. The results are mixed, with some studies showing benefits of PMS while others show no significant differences. PMS has a significant effect in reducing pain scores in the short term, but its efficacy in the long term is limited. Further high-quality studies are needed to establish the effectiveness and safety of PMS.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available