Hulme J, Robinson V, DeBie R, Wells G, Judd M, Tugwell P
Cochrane Collaborating Center, Center for Global Health, Institute of Population Health - University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(1):CD003523. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003523.
BACKGROUND: As the focus for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment shifts away from drug therapy, we consider the effectiveness of pulsed electric stimulation which is proven to stimulate cartilage growth on the cellular level. OBJECTIVES: 1)To assess the effectiveness of pulsed electric stimulation for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). 2) To assess the most effective and efficient method of applying an electromagnetic field, through pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) or electric stimulation, as well as the consideration of length of treatment, dosage, and the frequency of the applications. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) up to and including 2001. This included searches through the coordinating offices of the trials registries of the Cochrane Field of Physical and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group for further published and unpublished articles. The electronic search was complemented by hand searches and experts in the area. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared PEMF or direct electric stimulation against placebo in patients with OA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included in the review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (JH,VR) and extracted the data using pre-developed extraction forms for the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by the same reviewers using a validated scale (Jadad 1996). Osteoarthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications according to OMERACT guidelines (Bellamy 1997) and additional secondary outcomes considered. MAIN RESULTS: Only three studies with a total of 259 OA patients were included in the review. Electrical stimulation therapy had a small to moderate effect on outcomes for knee OA, all statistically significant with clinical benefit ranging from 13-23% greater with active treatment than with placebo. Only 2 outcomes for cervical OA were significantly different with PEMF treatment and no clinical benefit can be reported with changes of 12% or less. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that electrical stimulation therapy may provide significant improvements for knee OA, but further studies are required to confirm whether the statistically significant results shown in these trials confer to important benefits.
背景:随着骨关节炎(OA)治疗重点从药物治疗转移,我们考虑脉冲电刺激的有效性,已证实其能在细胞水平刺激软骨生长。 目的:1)评估脉冲电刺激治疗骨关节炎(OA)的有效性。2)评估通过脉冲电磁场(PEMF)或电刺激施加电磁场的最有效和高效方法,同时考虑治疗时长、剂量及应用频率。 检索策略:我们检索了截至2001年(包括2001年)的PREMEDLINE、MEDLINE、HealthSTAR、CINAHL、PEDro以及Cochrane对照试验注册库(CCTR)。这包括通过Cochrane物理及相关治疗领域试验注册库和Cochrane肌肉骨骼组的协调办公室检索更多已发表和未发表的文章。电子检索辅以手工检索和该领域专家检索。 入选标准:比较PEMF或直接电刺激与安慰剂治疗OA患者的随机对照试验和对照临床试验。 数据收集与分析:两名综述作者根据纳入和排除标准确定纳入综述的研究(JH,VR),并使用为Cochrane肌肉骨骼组预先制定的提取表格提取数据。试验的方法学质量由相同的综述作者使用经过验证的量表(Jadad 1996)进行评估。根据OMERACT指南(Bellamy 1997)从出版物中提取骨关节炎结局指标,并考虑其他次要结局。 主要结果:综述仅纳入三项研究,共259例OA患者。电刺激疗法对膝骨关节炎结局有小到中度影响,所有结果在统计学上均有显著意义,积极治疗的临床获益比安慰剂高13 - 23%。PEMF治疗仅2项颈椎骨关节炎结局有显著差异,且变化幅度在12%或以下时无临床获益报告。 综述作者结论:目前证据表明电刺激疗法可能显著改善膝骨关节炎,但需要进一步研究以确认这些试验中显示的统计学显著结果是否带来重要益处。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007-7-18
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001
Glob Adv Health Med. 2015-11
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015-3-1
Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2014-1
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-8-26
Chiropr Osteopat. 2010-2-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009-10-7