What did this study find?
This systematic review catalogued ninety-two qualifying in-vitro publications from 1999 to 2019 and documents that most pulsed electromagnetic field literature is preclinical. It underpins the rule we apply throughout this library: a positive study is not evidence for a device unless the signal parameters are comparable.
What are the details of this record?
- Full citation
- In-Vitro PEMF Research: Systematic Review.
- Study design
- Systematic review
- Sample size and population
- 92 qualifying publications 1999-2019
- Evidence grade
- Grade n/a on the BioReg grading scale
- Reported findings
- Documents that most PEMF literature is preclinical. Supports the rule that a positive PEMF study is not evidence for a device unless signal parameters are comparable.
- DOI
- No DOI recorded
- PubMed
- Not indexed in PubMed
- Related categories
- Methodological Limits (category grade n/a)
A positive PEMF study is not evidence for a specific device unless the signal parameters studied, frequency, intensity, waveform, and exposure duration, are reasonably comparable to what that device produces. Where this record does not list those parameters, the source report did not publish them. See the grading methodology. Library last reviewed 2026-08-27.