Static magnets prevent leg ulcer recurrence: savings for the NHS?

The objectives of this survey were to examine the effectiveness of a static magnet device--4UlcerCare--in preventing recurrence of leg ulcers after healing. Two hundred and eighty-nine randomly selected purchasers of 4UlcerCare were telephoned and asked to complete a short questionnaire. Our focus was on the 211 respondents who had ulcers that had already healed. The average age of subjects was 70.6 years and sex distribution was 55% female to 45% male. Mean duration of leg ulcers before using 4UlcerCare was 4.4 years. Sixty-five per cent of those surveyed had had ulcer recurrence before using 4UlcerCare, with a mean of 2.41 episodes of ulceration. This was close to the expected recurrence rate in the population of 67%. Using 4UlcerCare daily, these respondents' ulcers had healed within an average of 3.57 months. The survey took place an average of 19.94 months after healing. The manufacturers advise wearing 4UlcerCare daily post-healing, and of those respondents that had, none had suffered any recurrence. Extrapolating these results across the health economy, an estimate has been made of a potential pound153.7 million per year saving on leg ulcer care to the NHS.

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study to investigate the effectiveness of a static magnet to relieve dysmenorrhea.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a specially designed, static magnet of 2700 gauss, attached over the pelvic area, could relieve menstrual pain. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, postal questionnaire study. SETTING: The study was conducted in a primary care, single center. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five (65) women (mean age 29.1 +/- 1.52 years) were recruited from an advertisement in a London newspaper. The entry criterion was regular dysmenorrhea. The exclusion criterion was known secondary dysmenorrhea. Of the 65 women who were enrolled, 35 completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: A questionnaire-based assessment was completed by each subject and checked by telephone before and after random allocation to use of either the static magnet device (2700 gauss) or an identical, weaker magnetic placebo device (140 gauss). Assessment was made by telephone before and after a complete menstrual cycle. None of the participants was examined or seen face-to-face. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were level of pain, using the McGill Pain and Visual Analogue Scales, and ratings of associated symptoms such as irritability, restriction of usual activities, and painkiller consumption. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction (p < 0.02) in pain in the magnet group compared to the placebo group. Pain score differences (McGill pain score before-pain score after use of device) were -17 (-53, 13) (median and interquartile ranges) in the magnet group and -5.0 (-29, 27) in the placebo group. The 95% Mann-Whitney confidence intervals for the median difference between the magnet and placebo groups (magnet-placebo) were -53.0 to 23.38. A reduction in irritability symptoms in the magnet group approached statistical significance (p = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small number of participants, the level of significance reached in the reduction of pain merits reporting. This is a pilot study to a much larger study of the same device as an analgesic in women with primary dysmenorrhea.

A critical review of randomized controlled trials of static magnets for pain relief.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to establish whether there is evidence for or against the efficacy of static magnets to produce analgesia. METHODS: A systematic literature review was undertaken of studies that compared the use of static magnets with an appropriate control for the treatment of pain. Study methods, their quality, and outcome were also reviewed. RESULTS: Overall, 13 of the 21 studies reported a significant analgesic effect due to static magnets. Of the 18 better quality studies with 3 points or more on the quality assessment, 11 were positive and six were negative, and in one there was a non-significant trend towards a positive analgesic effect. In two of the negative studies, there are concerns over adequacy of magnet power for the type of pain, and in the other study of duration of exposure to the magnetic field. If these two studies are excluded on the grounds of inadequate treatment, then 11 out of 15 (73.3%) of the better quality studies demonstrated a positive effect of static magnets in achieving analgesia across a broad range of different types of pain (neuropathic, inflammatory, musculoskeletal, fibromyalgic, rheumatic, and postsurgical). CONCLUSIONS: The weight of evidence from published, well-conducted controlled trials suggests that static magnetic fields are able to induce analgesia.