Talk:Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

PEMF Article[edit]

This article is full of unproven medical claims, they were made entirely by one or two people and upon trying to find any sources for the page my searching has indicated that they have been pulled from thin air. I'm putting up a neutrality flag, but I may suggest this article is deleted if this isn't cleaned up. Previous unsigned comment by 19:24, 20 September 2009

I could find no unproven claims in this article. All facts were cited using credible sources. Please be specific about which facts require verification. Previous unsigned comment by Kcfrankl(talk|contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) you User Verbal (talk|contribs)?
Critical thinking scientists, university and college students are usually NOT forbidden the knowledge of electromedicine, and are usually NOT blocked from accessing the Pub Med or nytimes web sites to search for double blind medical studies and information on various (proven) forms of electromedicine. The search for such things can best be performed making use of the Google search engine when using the site:website-name search item. FYI the PubMed site is run by the US NIH and so is supposedly a WP:RS, and so too is the nytimes.
For example searches that you should read the results from include the following:
  1. "Augmentation of Bone Repair by Inductively Coupled Electromagnetic Fields"
  2. "Bassett CA" pulsed
  3. pulsed OR pulsing magnetic therapy OR treatment OR healing
Are there any key reasons why it was that you could not find this information for yourself?
What in your background and experience prompted you immediately to think that this form of treatment method was quackery? The blind following of monopolistic tycoons who would rather narrow the breadth of human thinking to solutions provided only by corporations that they own and control is a bad plan.
For your edification, you should research (carefully) the claims made here, here, here, here, or here to see if any non-tycoon based sources think that corruption has not set in anywhere in our society, especially the medical science area.
Since many of the references of the article are from peer reviewed scientific journals, what reliable articles / sources are there that contradict or are critical of the ones cited in the current version of the article that would validate your claims of neutrality or invalid claims / sources?
In November 2008 some user known as Oldspammer inserted the following text (bounded by the horizontal lines) into the Electromagnetic therpay talk page:

Old information, newly found:

1995 Salzburg
... 30 male participants...
For spinal cord-injured men with Stage II pressure ulcers, active non-thermal pulsed electromagnetic energy treatment significantly improved healing.


The effect of diapulse therapy on the healing of decubitus ulcer.
1993 Jan-Jun;30(1-2):41-5 Comorosan S, Vasilco R, Arghiropol M, Paslaru L, Jieanu V, Stelea S.
The effect of pulsed high peak power electromagnetic field (Diapulse) on treatment of pressure ulcers is under investigation. 20 elderly patients, aged from 60 to 84, hospitalized with chronic conditions and bearing long-standing pressure ulcers, are subjected to Diapulse sessions (1-2 daily), parallel to conventional treatment. 5 patients undergo conventional therapy, serving as control and 5 others follow conventional+placebo Diapulse treatment. All patients were daily monitored, concerning their clinical status and ulcers' healing. After a maximum 2-weeks treatment, bulge healing rate was, as follows: 85% excellent and 15% very good healing under Diapulse therapy; in the placebo group, 80% patients show no improvement and 20% poor improvement; in the control group, 60% patients show no improvement and 40% poor improvement of ulcers. This investigation strongly advises for Diapulse treatment as a modern, uninvasive therapy of great efficiency and low social costs in resolving a serious, widespread medical problem.

However, the following contradits the not just one of above statements, but both by saying the opposite thing seemingly about exactly these previous two studies:

Updated 2006 by PMID: 16625564 2001 Electromagnetic therapy for the treatment of pressure sores.
Flemming K, Cullum N.
...MAIN RESULTS: A total of two eligible RCTs were identified for inclusion in this review. The first of these studies (Comorosan 1993) was a three armed study comparing electromagnetic therapy, electromagnetic therapy in combination with standard therapy, and standard therapy alone. The second study (Salzburg 1995) was a comparison between electromagnetic therapy and sham therapy on 30 male patients with a spinal cord injury and a grade two or grade three pressure sore.

Updated as follows:

2006 updates previous PMID: 11279778... Two RCTs were identified for inclusion in the original review (total of 60 participants). One was a three-armed study comparing electromagnetic therapy with electromagnetic therapy in combination with standard therapy, and with standard therapy alone, on 17 female and 13 male with grade II and III pressure ulcers. The other study compared electromagnetic therapy with sham therapy in 30 male participants with a spinal cord injury and a grade II or grade III pressure ulcer. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between the healing rates of pressure ulcers in people treated with electromagnetic therapy compared with those in the control group.

... However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out, due to the fact that there were only two included trials both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.

The contradiction is that opposite things are being stated--the new study about both the older ones.

What was the level of "statistical significance" used as a threshold in these different studies? I ask this because one of the cited studies says "85% excellent and 15% very good healing." Was there supposed to be instantaneous healing of 100%? Were these significance levels set by US-based medical insurance companies?

In the Pub-Med search for >Pulsed Electromagnetic wound< 177 records were found. I checked a few of these and all said that PEMF was found significantly beneficial and one said that "most recent studies" said this.

I examined Google search result information of EM therapy and found that FDA and medicare approved EM therapies for various things was not being covered by "for profit" US-based medical insurance carriers. It is explained in PDF documents from various carriers that one of the cited reasons why healthcare insurance policy coverage is denied for EM therapies was this particular Cochrane review study. These customer policy manuals claim that this particular study sufficiently demonstrated that EM therapies are completely experimental in nature, and statistically likely to provide no useful treatment.

In light of the contradition of the many Pub-Med reliable source studies and this one negative Cochrane review (that seems to mischaracterize the authors of both its subject studies), what should go into the article: the negative point of view of US medical insurance companies, or the actual studies themselves?

The negative studies about EM fields usually involve things like power lines--completely different than the therapy applications.

I suggest that the individual PEMF studies speak for themselves, and that the summary of the studies seems to have gotten things backwards somehow?--Why?--Who knows? So the WP article should be revised in light of this information to at least more carefully qualify the points of view. It also should be mentioned in the article that most US-medical insurance companies currently do not support the use of these FDA and Medicare approved therapes mainly because of this particular Cochrane review study. Oldspammer (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With this in mind, I now say that there are fake Cochrane Reviews of prior studies that present diametrically opposing conclusions to the very studies supposedly being reviewed--I do not trust these because they are being used by US for-profit medical insurance companies to deny claims based soley on the claim by these Cochrane authors that after 30 years that the treatment method is experimental, even though in 2004 or so it was approved by US Medicare / Medicaid (See these search results). (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy "unproven"?[edit]

The fact is that PEMF is widely used and approved by the FDA. There are many studies showing that it's effective. To say that it's "unproven" because it's not used is both poor logic and factually incorrect.

User:Verbal is making a claim that PEMF is "unproven". This claim needs to be justified. --Dyuku (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide references from WP:RS for your claims that it is a widely used mainstream treatment.
I never made such a claim. --Dyuku (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not my claim.
And neither is it mine. What I said was that "PEMF is widely used and approved by the FDA", which is factual. What you're doing OTOH is obvious POV pushing, breaking Wikipedia rules. --Dyuku (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to suggest alternative wording. We should not mislead our readers. Do you have an interest in PEMF treatments? Verbal chat 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have an interest in all non-invasive, non-toxic therapies. What about you? --Dyuku (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have an interest in building an encyclopaedia. Please address the article and how you feel it could be improved. See WP:TALK. Verbal chat 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please provide some substance for your claim that Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy is "unproven". See WP:V. --Dyuku (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have included some academic journal references validating the effectiveness of PEMF Therapy. Anyone that believes otherwise, please review these articles before deciding to undo the changes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of a peer-reviewed study[edit]

Why did 'Verbal' delete the peer-reviewed study by Thomas et al? What's wrong with it? --Dyuku (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "delete" the study,
You deleted the ref. --Dyuku (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted what I feel is your WP:UNDUE presentation.
By quoting directly from the abstract? This is bizarre. --Dyuku (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to propose other ways of incorporating this study. Verbal chat 23:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Originally, this was just a ref. You deleted the ref. Your editing of this article is not helpful, and demonstrates bias. --Dyuku (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and use this talk page to address the article, not other editors. Verbal chat 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted the ref for Thomas et al study. --Dyuku (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)






"real physical entity"[edit]

This edit restores text that, in my opinion, falls afoul of basic academic plagiarism standards by presenting the words of the source in the voice of the article, in effect asserting that one of the editors here originated the text. This sentence is far beyond the threshold of being a generic description. Attributing the statement and putting it in quotation marks would address this issue, but the relevance of the statement has not been established. Additionally, electromagnetic fields have never been perceived as somehow "not real", making it unclear what exactly the sentence and citation are adding to the article. Accordingly, I have removed it again. Please address these points before restoring this material. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion over various "magnetic therapies" - which are scientific medicine and which are not[edit]

It seems that many of the editorial debates may source a bit from confusion over the various types of therapies purported to use magnetic fields in some way. Magnetic fields are not magic - they work in a very specific way. Putting a magnetic under your skin will not attract blood haemoglobin to increase circulation, but rubbing it on your skin might have some effect, because a changing magnetic field creates some active responses in the body.

So magnet therapy, which typically is advertised with static fields, is completely bunk. But this, Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS is being used noninvasively for certain mental illness) and MRI, which again use dynamic fields, are real with well-observed effects.

Of course, unscrupulous companies may prey on this confusion, as many hawkers of wares with purported health benefits do. So just watch out especially with the commercial vendor sites, as noted (in a less-tactful manner) above. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a rescuing[edit]

At first I was skeptal of this article then I double checked the med references.. They seem good. Then I looked at all the deletes and thought GRRRR then I double checked the deletes and coundy them all copy and pasted from elsewhere. BIGGER GRRRRR. So yeah... I think it looks cleaner now then from when before you started. PEFT helps heal bones according to the FDA? Thats fine with me. Treating depression? Whatever, so long as it is sourced. BUt I dont think you need to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. Just keep an open cynical and honest mind when editing and it will be just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talkcontribs) 01:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

HC license[edit]

Looks like the license is real: Of course that's not much of a useful statement for content. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

nanosecond pulsed electric fields[edit]

User:DrConcern - here is what is going on:

  • you added content here cited to just a patent.
  • I reverted here citing [[W{SPS]]
  • yuo restored here adding a ref
  • I reverted here noting the ref is WP:PRIMARY and the content violates WP:PROMO and I cited WP:MEDRS and also provided you with notification about MEDRS on your Talk page here
  • you restored again here adding another PRIMARY source and not addressing the WP:PROMO violation at all.

I have reverted again. Do not restore this without discussing it here. Please see the edit warring notice on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Jytdog this is all new to me as you know I wish to add the nsPEF section, I understand that you see it as [WP:PROMO] as the refs are the inventors, I have nothing to do with them but know the potential of the new technology - I have added another ref. What do you want me to do to meet approval? DrConcern (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

[1] please do not re-add this...[2]by RexxS covers your question above...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for finally starting to talk - I was afraid we would have to block you. DrConcern if there are no sources that comply with WP:MEDRS then we don't discuss it. Wikipedia is for communicating accepted knowledge to the public, not what is cutting edge. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I realize that this may all confuse everyone, but there are two possible kinds of "accepted knowledge" here: the accepted knowledge about what treatments work (or are used anyway), and the accepted knowledge about what kind of research has been happening recently. We can't say anything about treatment efficacy on the basis of a single animal study, but we might be able to create a ==Research directions== section that mentions the fact that research into whether nsPEF might be useful for cancer treatment has been going on since ~2004 "with the goal of fighting cancer cells", to quote this book. There are several books that mention this subject, e.g. [3][4][5]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Claims of biomedical effectiveness require a WP:MEDRS source[edit]

I've gone through this article and removed each claim of effectiveness that isn't referenced to a source which meets the standard of WP:MEDRS. Single case studies, trials and experiments on animals are insufficient to support claims that a particular treatment has a biomedical effect. It is equally unacceptable to write "PEMF therapy may offer some benefit in the treatment of ...". Suggesting that there may be benefit does not relieve the requirement for a MEDRS source. At best it could be reported as a claim. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There may be some utility to PMC 4292325, PMID 21786259, PMID 26042793, PMID 27086866. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)