What did this study find?
This meta-analysis pooled 13 randomized trials covering 688 patients with neuropathic pain. An apparent benefit for pulsed electromagnetic fields disappeared once the authors corrected for publication bias, leaving no statistically significant effect. The result indicates that the positive neuropathy literature is inflated by selective reporting of favorable trials.
What are the details of this record?
- Full citation
- PEMF for Neuropathic Pain: Meta-Analysis. 2026. PMID: 41745713.
- Study design
- Meta-analysis
- Sample size and population
- 688 patients across 13 RCTs
- Evidence grade
- Grade D on the BioReg grading scale
- Reported findings
- Overall benefit became nonsignificant after adjustment for publication bias. Peripheral neuropathy subgroup nonsignificant.
- DOI
- No DOI recorded
- PubMed
- PMID 41745713
- Related categories
- Neuropathic Pain (category grade C+)
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.