You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 283 No. 10, March 8, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Preliminary Communication
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (48)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Bipolar Permanent Magnets for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

A Pilot Study

Edward A. Collacott, MD; John T. Zimmerman, PhD; Donald W. White, PT; Joseph P. Rindone, PharmD

JAMA. 2000;283:1322-1325.

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.


Author Affiliations: Bio-Electro-Magnetics Institute, Reno, Nev (Dr Zimmerman); and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Prescott, Ariz (Drs Collacott and Rindone and Mr White).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Reporting Drug Abuse in the Emergency Department
Judy Ball, Samuel Korper, Albert Woodward, David E. Joranson, Karen M. Ryan, Aaron M. Gilson, and June L. Dahl
JAMA. 2000;284(5):564.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Are Magnets Effective for Pain Control?
Craig G. Burkhart, Craig N. Burkhart, Michael I. Weintraub, Abraham M. Blechman, Windsor Ting, Saran Jonas, and Edward A. Collacott
JAMA. 2000;284(5):564-566.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

March 8, 2000
JAMA. 2000;283(10):1361-1362.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Static Magnetic Field Therapy: A Critical Review of Treatment Parameters
Colbert et al.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2009;6:133-139.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials
Machado et al.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009;48:520-527.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Pittler et al.
CMAJ 2007;177:736-742.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Nonsurgical Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain
Shen et al.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;14:477-487.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Magnet therapy
Finegold and Flamm
BMJ 2006;332:4-4.
FULL TEXT  

Effect of Magnetic vs Sham-Magnetic Insoles on Nonspecific Foot Pain in the Workplace: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Winemiller et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80:1138-1145.
ABSTRACT  

The power of placebo
McCrory
Br. J. Sports. Med. 2005;39:125-125.
FULL TEXT  

Randomised controlled trial of magnetic bracelets for relieving pain in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee
Harlow et al.
BMJ 2004;329:1450-1454.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Magnetic vs Sham-Magnetic Insoles on Plantar Heel Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Winemiller et al.
JAMA 2003;290:1474-1478.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparative effect of positive and negative static magnetic fields on heart rate and blood pressure in healthy adults
Hinman
Clin Rehabil 2002;16:669-674.
ABSTRACT  

Unproven Therapies
Hirsch
Clin. Diabetes 2002;20:1-3.
FULL TEXT  

Are Magnets Effective for Pain Control?
Burkhart et al.
JAMA 2000;284:564-566.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.