Authors' objectives: To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of PEMF to heal damaged tissue and bone, to relieve pain, to stimulate organs, to treat depression, to treat diabetes, as well as for skin lifting and skin rejuvenation.

Authors' results and conclusions: The PEMF appeared beneficial in reducing pain and improving physical function in patients with knee and hand OA, but not in patients with cervical OA, compared with placebo or sham. Good level of evidence retrieved, demonstrating benefits of PEMF to relieve pain and improve functionality in patients with LBP until 12 weeks of follow-up, compared to sham treatment. Limited fair level of evidence retrieved on PEMF in the treatment of patients post spinal surgery, fracture with cast immobilisation, mild to moderate metabolic syndrome, benign prostate hyperplasia and primary dysmenorrhoea. The PEMF therapy appeared safe and well tolerated in the study population with mild adverse events reported. Based on cost utility analysis from societal perspective done in Netherland, the PEMF cannot be considered as a cost-effective treatment for acute fractures of the scaphoid bone, when comparing the effects of PEMF to standard health care in terms of QALY’s.

Authors' recommendations: PEMF may be used as symptomatic adjunct treatment in the management of musculoskeletal pain related to osteoarthritis of the knee or hand, and low back pain; provided these patients have sought medical attention. The use is contraindicated in patients with implanted electrical devices like pacemakers or intrathecal pumps, and it should be used with caution in certain condition such as Grave’s disease or active bleeding.

Authors' methods: A systematic review was conducted. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases. Search strategy was developed by the main author and Information Specialist. The following databases were searched through the Ovid interface: MEDLINE(R) In-process and other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to present. EBM Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 to March 2021), EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (March 2021), EBM Reviews – Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects (1st Quarter 2021), EBM Reviews-Health Technology Assessment (1st Quarter 2021), EBM Reviews-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (1st Quarter 2021). Parallel searches were run in PubMed. No limits were applied to the search. The last search was run on 1 March 2021. Additional articles were identified from reviewing the references of retrieved articles. Among the tools used to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies are the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB)2 and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Level of evidence of included articles were based on guidelines from the US/Canadian Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors' identified further research: The use of PEMF for bone healing, and other areas including benign prostatic hyperplasia, primary dysmenorrhoea and metabolic syndrome needs further research to ascertain its effectiveness in these group of patients.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2020

URL for published report: http://www.moh.gov.my/index.php/database_stores/store_view_page/30/373

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Mini HTA

Country: Malaysia

Organisation Name: Malaysian Health Technology Assessment

Contact Address: Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Level 4, Block E1, Parcel E, 62590 Putrajaya Malaysia Tel: +603 8883 1229

Contact Name: htamalaysia@moh.gov.my

Contact Email: htamalaysia@moh.gov.my

Copyright: Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS)