title: Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
abstract: 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors: Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK. max.pittler@pms.ac.uk
authors: Max H
authors: MH
authors: Pittler
authors: Elizabeth M
authors: EM
authors: Brown
authors: Edzard
authors: E
authors: Ernst
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D008280:Magnetics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D059408:Pain Management; D010147:Pain Measurement; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic