Evidence Hub

Electric/Magnetic Intervention for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Zhu F, Liu W, Li P, Zhao H, Deng X, Wang HL

Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2023

Abstract

Electric/magnetic material or field is a promising strategy for bone regeneration. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to analyze the evidence regarding the efficacy of electric and magnetic intervention for bone regeneration and provide directions for further research. A comprehensive search was performed to identify the rats/rabbits/mice research that involved the electric/magnetic treatment with quantitative radiographic assessment of bone formation. Network meta-analyses were also conducted to assess different interventions and outcomes for osteogenesis. In total, there were 51 articles included in the systematic review and 19 articles in the network meta-analyses. The majority used microcomputerized tomography bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV) to evaluate outcomes in rats. Results showed that placing electric/magnetic materials in situ had more prominent effects than the electric/magnetic field on bone regeneration. For all species, electrical materials with zeta potential of -53 mV proved to be the most effective in increasing BV (mean difference [MD]: 4.20 mm3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.72-6.68]) and bone mineral density (MD: 312 mg/cm3, 95% CI: [172.43-451.57]). Magnetic materials with external magnetic fields topped in BV/TV (MD: 43%, 95% CI: [36.04-49.96]). It also led in trabecular number (MD: 2.00 mm-1, 95% CI: [1.45-2.55]), trabecular thickness (MD: 61.00 μm, 95% CI: [44.31- 77.69]), and trabecular separation (MD: -0.40 mm, 95%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free