ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) for the management of primary osteoporosis in older adults.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CCTR, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, CNKI, VIP, Wan Fang, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current controlled trials from the inception dates to April 30, 2021.
Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials examining the effects of PEMFs compared to placebo or sham or other agents for the management of primary osteoporosis (including those with previous fractures).
Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data. Primary outcomes were bone mass and number of incident fractures. Secondary outcomes were functional assessments, quality of life, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. A random effects model was used to calculate mean differences and 95% confidence intervals.
Results Eight trials including 396 participants met the inclusion criteria. Low certainty evidence showed that PEMFs was non-inferior to conventional pharmacological agents in preventing the decline of Bone Mineral Density (BMD) at the lumbar (MD 0.01; CI -0.04 to 0.06) and femur neck (MD 0.01; CI -0.02 to 0.04), and improving balance function measured by Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (MD 0.01; CI -0.09 to 0.11) and Timed Up and Go test (MD -0.04; CI -0.80 to 0.72), directly after intervention. The similar effects were observed in BMD and BBS at 12- and 24-weeks follow-up from baseline with moderate certainty evidence. Very low certainty evidence showed that PEMFs (versus exercise) had small but significant effect on BMD at the femur neck (MD 0.10; CI 0.01 to 0.20), and no effect on BMD at the lumbar (MD 0.15; CI -0.04 to 0.35).
Conclusion PEMFs had positive effects non-inferior to first-line treatment on BMD and balance function in older adults with primary osteoporosis, but with low to very low certainty evidence and short-term follow-ups. There is a need for high-quality randomised controlled trials evaluating PEMFs for the management of primary osteoporosis.
Registration PROSPERO CRD42018099518.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (81972146 to Chengqi He, and 82002393 to Siyi Zhu), the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province (2020YJ0210 to Chengqi He, 2021YFS0004 and 2021YJ0424 to Siyi Zhu), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2020M673251), Health Commission of Sichuan Province (20PJ034), and West China Hospital of Sichuan University (2019HXBH058 to Siyi Zhu). The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 15and reported based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA). The protocol of this study is available in PROSPERO (CRD42018099518).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Abstract updated. The main text was revised to maintain consistency with the protocol registered.
Data Availability
No additional data available.
