1999
DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199912000-00054
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Influence of Permanent Magnetic Field Therapy on Wound Healing in Suction Lipectomy Patients: A Double-Blind Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…15,16 In 1957, Fukada and Yasuda from Japan demonstrated the piezoelectric effect in bone. They noted the ability of mechanical stress to generate polarization in the healing bone and application of an extrinsic electric field-generated strain within the tissues.…”
Section: Electromagnetic Fieldsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15,16 In 1957, Fukada and Yasuda from Japan demonstrated the piezoelectric effect in bone. They noted the ability of mechanical stress to generate polarization in the healing bone and application of an extrinsic electric field-generated strain within the tissues.…”
Section: Electromagnetic Fieldsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical investigation of local, chronic SMF treatment on postlipectomy patients revealed significant reduction of edema and pain when applied immediately after surgery (20). In addition, application of a global, chronic SMF to pharmacologically induced synovitis demonstrated significant reduction in inflammatory infiltrate (44).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2 other cases, additional information was requested but was not received. 13,16 Four randomized controlled trials assessed patients with peripheral joint osteoarthritis, and 3 were available for each of low-back pain, delayed-onset muscle soreness and foot pain. There was no other condition for which more than 2 randomized trials were available (Table 1 and Table 2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The success of blinding in magnet and placebo groups was not assessed in 18 of the randomized controlled trials. 9,[13][14][15][16][17][18][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]28,[30][31][32] Nonspecific effects may have contributed to the observed effects and may even have been the main factor contributing to the findings in some trials. Six trials 8,10,11,19,27,29 established that equal proportions of participants in the magnet and placebo groups believed they had been given magnetic devices; the 2 groups could thus be assumed to have similar expectations of pain relief.…”
Section: -41mentioning
confidence: 99%