Evidence Hub

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for pain, disability, and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pan J, Jia Y, Li K, Liu X, Liu Z, Cui Z, Liao L, Diao Y et al.

European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025

177 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive and painless approach developed for therapeutic intervention in clinical rehabilitation. Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) originates from the musculoskeletal system and leads to disability and fear of pain. It may be an option for CMP treatment, but its effectiveness is still unclear.

Evidence acquisition: PubMed, PEDro, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for relevant literatures according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria on May 26th, 2023.

Evidence synthesis: The methodology quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2.0) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. The cumulative effects of available data were processed for a meta-analysis using RevMan software. Eight RCTs with 177 participants were included. All studies were assessed as having some concerns regarding the risk of bias. rPMS significantly reduced pain intensity compared with the control, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) across visual analogue scales (VAS) and numerical rating scales (NRS) was -1.16 (95% CI: -1.56 to -0.76, I2=21%, very low-quality evidence), indicating effective pain relief. For subgroup analysis of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), the meta-analysis revealed a remarkable pain relief (SMD=-0.92, 95% CI: -1.67 to -0.17, I2=45%, very low-quality…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 177 participants or records.

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