TWiki . Edumacation . MagneticStudyLowBackPain	TWiki . { Main | Edumacation | TWiki | Test }
	Edumacation . { Home | Users | Changes | Search | Go }

Comment in: JAMA. 2000 Aug 2;284(5):564-5; discussion 566 JAMA. 2000 Aug 2;284(5):565-6; discussion 566 JAMA. 2000 Aug 2;284(5):565; discussion 566 JAMA. 2000 Aug 2;284(5):566

Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a pilot study.

Collacott EA, Zimmerman JT, White DW, Rindone JP.

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Prescott, Ariz 86313, USA. user edward.collacott at domain med.va.gov

CONTEXT: Chronic low back pain is one of the most prevalent and costly medical conditions in the United States. Permanent magnets have become a popular treatment for various musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain, despite little scientific support for therapeutic benefit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 1 type of therapeutic magnet, a bipolar permanent magnet, with a matching placebo device for patients with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study conducted from February 1998 to May 1999.

SETTING: An ambulatory care physical medicine and rehabilitation clinic at a Veterans Affairs hospital.

PATIENTS: Nineteen men and 1 woman with stable low back pain of a mean of 19 years' duration, with no past use of magnet therapy for low back pain. Twenty patients were determined to provide 80% power in the study at P<.05 to detect a difference of 2 points (the difference believed to be clinically significant) on a visual analog scale (VAS).

INTERVENTIONS: For each patient, real and sham bipolar permanent magnets were applied, on alternate weeks, for 6 hours per day, 3 days per week for 1 week, with a 1-week washout period between the 2 treatment weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pretreatment and posttreatment pain intensity on a VAS; sensory and affective components of pain on the Pain Rating Index (PRI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire; and range of motion (ROM) measurements of the lumbosacral spine, compared by real vs sham treatment.

RESULTS: Mean VAS scores declined by 0.49 (SD, 0.96) points for real magnet treatment and by 0.44 (SD, 1.4) points for sham treatment (P = .90). No statistically significant differences were noted in the effect between real and sham magnets with any of the other outcome measures (ROM, P = .66; PRI, P = .55).

CONCLUSIONS: Application of 1 variety of permanent magnet had no effect on our small group of subjects with chronic low back pain.

Topic MagneticStudyLowBackPain . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.1 }

You must register before editing pages or using other extended features on this TWiki system.

Revision r1.1 - 31 May 2001 - 21:49 by EliMantel  Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2000-2005 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors. Collect email addresses here. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback.