Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.2042-7166.2007.tb05906.x
复制
发表时间：
2007-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Pittler;Elizabeth M. Brown;E. Ernst
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Pittler;Elizabeth M. Brown;E. Ernst
背景静态磁铁在市场上声称具有减轻疼痛的有效性，尽管支持这种说法的科学原理或生物机制的证据有限。我们进行了一项系统的综述和荟萃分析，以评估静磁治疗疼痛的随机试验的临床证据。方法计算机检索Medline、EMBASE、AMED、CINAHL、Scope us、Cochrane图书馆和英国国家研究登记数据库。所有关于静磁治疗任何原因引起的疼痛的随机临床试验都被考虑在内。只有涉及安慰剂对照或弱磁铁作为对照，并以疼痛作为结果衡量标准的试验才被纳入。在100 mm视觉模拟尺度上测量的疼痛的平均变化被定义为主要结果，并被用来评估静态磁铁和安慰剂之间的差异。结果共鉴定出29个潜在相关试验。9个使用视觉模拟评分评估疼痛的随机安慰剂对照试验被纳入主要荟萃分析；对这些试验的分析表明在疼痛减轻方面没有显著差异(加权平均差异[在100 mm视觉模拟评分上]2.1 mm，95%可信区间-1.8至5.9 mm，p=0.29)。这一结果得到了敏感性分析的证实，排除了急性影响和肌肉骨骼疾病以外的情况的试验。对用不同等级评估疼痛的试验的分析表明，试验之间存在显著的异质性，这意味着汇集这些数据是不可靠的。解释证据不支持使用静电磁铁来缓解疼痛，因此磁铁不能被推荐为有效的治疗方法。对于骨性关节炎，证据不足以排除临床上重要的益处，这为进一步研究创造了机会。
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.