Mayrovitz Harvey N
Medical Education, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Davie, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Jan 26;17(1):e78007. doi: 10.7759/cureus.78007. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Many claims are made regarding the impacts of static magnetic fields (SMFs) on biological and physiological processes. Some of these are based on scientific underpinnings, and others appear to have less evidence to support them. The present report focuses on the evidence regarding SMF's effects on blood flow. Fortuitously, the author has direct experimental experience in this area. The approach for this review was to search three major databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase) for peer-reviewed articles written in English in which an SMF was used in humans or other animals and measurements of parameters related to blood flow or velocity before SMF application and either during or after application were reported. After screening the initial 1,954 articles, 108 studies were retrieved and evaluated for relevancy. Of these, 23 were found to satisfy the inclusion criteria and be relevant. This included 10 studies on humans and 13 studies on other animals. The methods employed in many of these studies are illustrated in this review to enhance understanding of the findings. With regard to human studies, none showed an increase in blood flow, and one showed a decrease in flow. With regard to the animal studies, one showed a transient post-exposure increase that was later explained as due to an actual reduction during SMF exposure. Four studies showed a decrease, four showed no change or difference from sham-exposed animals, and four reported an increase. Of these four, two were from the same author using a method that may not have reflected a blood flow change. Based on these findings, it is concluded that claims of an SMF providing an increase in blood flow or circulation are not supported by human studies and not well supported by animal studies. However, this does not close the door to a possible effect for at least four considerations or limitations that may have impacted the absence of a positive finding in human studies: (1) the number of subjects included is relatively small, which affects the study power; (2) the duration of the SMF application of most studies was relatively short; (3) most studies were done on healthy individuals; and (4) the SMF was delivered perpendicular to the body surface, so the effects of tangential field directions are unknown. Although these provisos may impact the detection of a possible SMF effect, they do not alter the current findings, as no reviewed human study has demonstrated a statistically significant increase in blood circulation attributable to an SMF. Thus, the clinical use of an SMF to improve blood circulation is not supported by experimental evidence.
关于静磁场(SMF)对生物和生理过程的影响,有许多说法。其中一些有科学依据,而另一些似乎缺乏足够的证据支持。本报告重点关注关于SMF对血流影响的证据。幸运的是,作者在这一领域有直接的实验经验。本综述的方法是在三个主要数据库(科学网、PubMed和Embase)中搜索以英文撰写的同行评审文章,这些文章在人类或其他动物中使用了SMF,并报告了在施加SMF之前以及施加期间或之后与血流或速度相关参数的测量结果。在筛选了最初的1954篇文章后,检索到108项研究并评估其相关性。其中,23项被发现符合纳入标准且相关。这包括10项关于人类的研究和13项关于其他动物的研究。本综述阐述了许多这些研究中采用的方法,以增进对研究结果的理解。关于人体研究,没有一项显示血流量增加,有一项显示血流量减少。关于动物研究,有一项显示暴露后短暂增加,后来解释为由于在SMF暴露期间实际减少。四项研究显示血流量减少,四项研究显示与假暴露动物相比无变化或差异,四项研究报告血流量增加。在这四项中,有两项来自同一作者,其使用的方法可能未反映出血流变化。基于这些发现,可以得出结论,人体研究不支持SMF能增加血流量或促进血液循环的说法,动物研究也没有很好地支持这一说法。然而,至少有四个可能影响人体研究中未得出阳性结果的考虑因素或局限性,这并不排除存在潜在影响:(1)纳入的受试者数量相对较少,这影响了研究效能;(2)大多数研究中SMF的施加持续时间相对较短;(3)大多数研究是在健康个体上进行的;(4)SMF是垂直于身体表面施加的,因此切向场方向的影响尚不清楚。尽管这些条件可能会影响对SMF潜在影响的确证,但它们不会改变当前的研究结果,因为没有一项综述的人体研究表明SMF可导致血液循环有统计学意义的增加。因此,实验证据不支持将SMF用于临床改善血液循环。