脉冲电磁场治疗对非特异性腰痛患者疼痛和身体功能的疗效:一项系统综述。

IF 1.1 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Philipp Kull, Mohammad Keilani, Franziska Remer, Richard Crevenna
{"title":"脉冲电磁场治疗对非特异性腰痛患者疼痛和身体功能的疗效:一项系统综述。","authors":"Philipp Kull, Mohammad Keilani, Franziska Remer, Richard Crevenna","doi":"10.1007/s10354-023-01025-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Non-specific low back pain is a common and clinically significant condition with substantial socioeconomic implications. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy has shown benefits in pain reduction and improvement of physical function in patients with pain-associated disorders like osteoarthritis. However, studies had heterogeneous settings. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of PEMF on pain and function on patients with non-specific low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro was performed (from inception until 15/5/2023). Outcome measures assessed pain and function.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials with 420 participants (n = 420) were included. The studies compared PEMF vs. placebo-PEMF, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. conventional physical therapy alone, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. placebo-PEMF and conventional physical therapy, PEMF vs. high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) vs. conventional physical therapy, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and PEMF vs. PEMF alone vs. placebo-PEMF vs. OMT alone. Five of the nine included studies showed statistically significant pain reduction and improvement in physical function in comparison to their control groups (p < 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity among the groups of the study, with a wide range of duration (10-30 min), treatments per week (2-7/week), applied frequencies (3-50 Hz), and intensities (2mT-150mT). No serious adverse event had been reported in any study. The included studies showed solid methodological quality, with an overall score of 7.2 points according to the PEDro scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEMF therapy seems to be a safe and beneficial treatment option for non-specific low back pain, particularly if used as an addition to conventional physical therapy modalities. Future research should focus on standardized settings including assessment methods, treatment regimens, frequencies, and intensities.</p>","PeriodicalId":23882,"journal":{"name":"Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Kull, Mohammad Keilani, Franziska Remer, Richard Crevenna\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10354-023-01025-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Non-specific low back pain is a common and clinically significant condition with substantial socioeconomic implications. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy has shown benefits in pain reduction and improvement of physical function in patients with pain-associated disorders like osteoarthritis. However, studies had heterogeneous settings. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of PEMF on pain and function on patients with non-specific low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro was performed (from inception until 15/5/2023). Outcome measures assessed pain and function.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials with 420 participants (n = 420) were included. The studies compared PEMF vs. placebo-PEMF, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. conventional physical therapy alone, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. placebo-PEMF and conventional physical therapy, PEMF vs. high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) vs. conventional physical therapy, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and PEMF vs. PEMF alone vs. placebo-PEMF vs. OMT alone. Five of the nine included studies showed statistically significant pain reduction and improvement in physical function in comparison to their control groups (p < 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity among the groups of the study, with a wide range of duration (10-30 min), treatments per week (2-7/week), applied frequencies (3-50 Hz), and intensities (2mT-150mT). No serious adverse event had been reported in any study. The included studies showed solid methodological quality, with an overall score of 7.2 points according to the PEDro scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEMF therapy seems to be a safe and beneficial treatment option for non-specific low back pain, particularly if used as an addition to conventional physical therapy modalities. Future research should focus on standardized settings including assessment methods, treatment regimens, frequencies, and intensities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10354-023-01025-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10354-023-01025-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:非特异性腰痛是一种常见且具有临床意义的疾病,具有重要的社会经济意义。脉冲电磁场(PEMF)治疗在减轻疼痛和改善骨关节炎等疼痛相关疾病患者的身体功能方面显示出益处。然而,研究有异质设置。本研究的目的是评估PEMF对非特异性腰痛患者疼痛和功能的影响。方法:系统检索PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library和PEDro的随机对照试验文献(从成立到2023年5月15日)。结果评估疼痛和功能。结果:纳入9项随机对照试验,420名受试者(n = 420)。这些研究比较了PEMF与安慰剂-PEMF、PEMF和常规物理治疗与单独的常规物理治疗、PEMF和常规物理治疗与安慰剂-PEMF和常规物理治疗、PEMF与高强度激光治疗(HILT)与常规物理治疗、整骨手法治疗(OMT)、PEMF与单独的PEMF、安慰剂-PEMF与单独的OMT。9项纳入的研究中有5项显示,与对照组相比,在疼痛减轻和身体功能改善方面具有统计学意义(p )。结论:对于非特异性腰痛,PEMF治疗似乎是一种安全有益的治疗选择,特别是如果作为常规物理治疗方式的补充。未来的研究应侧重于标准化设置,包括评估方法、治疗方案、频率和强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.

Introduction: Non-specific low back pain is a common and clinically significant condition with substantial socioeconomic implications. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy has shown benefits in pain reduction and improvement of physical function in patients with pain-associated disorders like osteoarthritis. However, studies had heterogeneous settings. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of PEMF on pain and function on patients with non-specific low back pain.

Methods: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro was performed (from inception until 15/5/2023). Outcome measures assessed pain and function.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials with 420 participants (n = 420) were included. The studies compared PEMF vs. placebo-PEMF, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. conventional physical therapy alone, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. placebo-PEMF and conventional physical therapy, PEMF vs. high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) vs. conventional physical therapy, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and PEMF vs. PEMF alone vs. placebo-PEMF vs. OMT alone. Five of the nine included studies showed statistically significant pain reduction and improvement in physical function in comparison to their control groups (p < 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity among the groups of the study, with a wide range of duration (10-30 min), treatments per week (2-7/week), applied frequencies (3-50 Hz), and intensities (2mT-150mT). No serious adverse event had been reported in any study. The included studies showed solid methodological quality, with an overall score of 7.2 points according to the PEDro scale.

Conclusion: PEMF therapy seems to be a safe and beneficial treatment option for non-specific low back pain, particularly if used as an addition to conventional physical therapy modalities. Future research should focus on standardized settings including assessment methods, treatment regimens, frequencies, and intensities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift
Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: ''From the microscope to clinical application!'', Scientists from all European countries make available their recent research results and practical experience through Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift, the renowned English- and German-language forum. Both original articles and reviews on a broad spectrum of clinical and preclinical medicine are presented within the successful framework of thematic issues compiled by guest editors. Selected cutting-edge topics, such as dementia, geriatric oncology, Helicobacter pylori and phytomedicine make the journal a mandatory source of information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信