Be Excellent To Each Other

In terms of magnetotherapy with the use of a low-induction magnetic field, there are serious doubts concerning its effectiveness in general....This work presents critical remarks and limitations of TMS, such as findings that its effectiveness is not particularly high.

No, but it's odd that I can't find anything shooting it down in massively SCIENCE ways. These gadgets are quite common apparently.

The widespread use of static magnetic field (SMF) therapy as a self-care physical intervention has led to the conduct of numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ]A recent systematic review of SMF trials for pain reduction concluded that the evidence does not support the use of permanent magnets for pain relief. We argue that this conclusion is unwarranted if the SMF dosage was inadequate or inappropriate for the clinical condition treated. The purpose of this communication is to (1) provide a rationale and an explanation for each of 10 essential SMF dosing parameters that should be considered when conducting trials of SMF therapy, and (2) advocate for the conduct of Phase I studies to optimize SMF dosimetry for each condition prior to implementing a large-scale RCT. A previous critical review of SMF dosimetry in 56 clinical studies found that reporting SMF dosages in a majority of those studies was of such poor quality that the magnetic field exposure at the target tissue could not be characterized. Without knowing what magnetic field actually reached the target, it is impossible to judge dosage adequacy. In order to quantify SMF exposure at the site of pathology (target tissue/s), that site must be clearly named; the distance of the permanent magnet surface from the target must be delineated; the physical parameters of the applied permanent magnet must be described; and the dosing regimen must be precisely reported. If the SMF dosimetry is inadequate, any inferences drawn from reported negative findings are questionable.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the acu-magnet therapy literature and determine if the evidence justifies further investigation of acu-magnet therapy for specific clinical indications. METHODS: Using various search strategies, a professional librarian searched six electronic databases (PubMed, AMED, ScienceDirect College Edition, China Academic Journals, Acubriefs, and the in-house Journal Article Index maintained by the Oregon College of Oriental Medicine Library). English and Chinese language human studies with all study designs and for all clinical indications were included. Excluded were experimental and animal studies, electroacupuncture and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design, number, age and gender of subjects, magnetic devices used, acu-magnet dosing regimens (acu-point site of magnet application and frequency and duration of treatment), control devices and control groups, outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Three hundred and eight citations were retrieved and 50 studies met our inclusion criteria. We were able to obtain and translate (when necessary) 42 studies. The language of 31 studies was English and 11 studies were in Chinese. The 42 studies reported on 32 different clinical conditions in 6453 patients from 19862007. A variety of magnetic devices, dosing regimens and control devices were used. Thirty seven of 42 studies (88%) reported therapeutic benefit. The only adverse events reported were exacerbation of hot flushes and skin irritation from adhesives. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this literature review we believe further investigation of acu-magnet therapy is warranted particularly for the management of diabetes and insomnia. The overall poor quality of the controlled trials precludes any evidence based treatment recommendations at this time.

BACKGROUND: Static magnets are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain, although evidence of scientific principles or biological mechanisms to support such claims is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical evidence from randomized trials of static magnets for treating pain. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted from inception to March 2007 for the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the UK National Research Register. All randomized clinical trials of static magnets for treating pain from any cause were considered. Trials were included only if they involved a placebo control or a weak magnet as the control, with pain as an outcome measure. The mean change in pain, as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, was defined as the primary outcome and was used to assess the difference between static magnets and placebo. RESULTS: Twenty-nine potentially relevant trials were identified. Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain with a visual analogue scale were included in the main meta-analysis; analysis of these trials suggested no significant difference in pain reduction (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual analogue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.8 to 5.9 mm, p = 0.29). This result was corroborated by sensitivity analyses excluding trials of acute effects and conditions other than musculoskeletal conditions. Analysis of trials that assessed pain with different scales suggested significant heterogeneity among the trials, which means that pooling these data is unreliable. INTERPRETATION: The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.

The bits you quoted are for static magnets, whereas this gadget gives you a 7-20HZ pulse.

But thanks, I'll have a look on that site.

Do you really need to ask?