Review: evidence does not support use of static magnets for painCommentary

Ginkgo bilobadid not prevent dementia or Alzheimer disease in elderly peopleCommentary

“…People often consider herbal therapies to be safe, even if they are not effective, and although I have previously suggested that financial harm occurs if people spend money on ineffectual remedies,2 this study suggests that physical harm may also occur. There was a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic strokes in the intervention group, and although this may be due to chance alone, it raises the question of “how safe is Ginkgo biloba ?” This is an important question as the perception exists that herbal remedies are intrinsically safer than pharmaceutical preparations 3.…”

Static magnetic field exposure in 1.5 and 3 Tesla MR scanners does not influence pain and touch perception in healthy volunteers

“…Similarly, although three systematic reviews (Parsons, ; Pittler et al., ; Salomonowitz et al., ) on placebo‐controlled studies found no significant reduction of clinical pain by magnetic field therapy in pain patients, there are some controlled studies postulating an analgesic effect of magnetic fields on clinical pain (Alfano et al., ; Vallbona, Hazlewood, & Jurida, ), raising the question if long‐standing pain is more sensitive to the effects of magnetic fields than acute pain. These aspects remain open to further studies.…”

“…Both positive and negative results regarding the presence of an effect of magnetic fields on pain perception have been published, but not all of them fulfil the requirements of controlled trials. Importantly, three systematic reviews (Parsons, ; Pittler et al., ; Salomonowitz et al., ) on placebo‐controlled studies found no significant reduction of clinical pain by magnetic field therapy in pain patients. They concluded that due to insufficient evidence, the application of magnetic field therapy cannot currently be recommended for pain treatment.…”

Medizinische Relevanz von Magnetfeldern zur Schmerztherapie

“…Bei der ersten Studie liegt die Qualität, welche dem Ranking entspricht, bei 2 von 5 Punkten, was auf einen methodischen Mangel hinweist (widersprüchliche Aussagen bezüg-lich der Durchführung). Die Studie von Cheing et al [7], bei der zudem ein signifikanter Unterschied festgestellt wurde, [21]. Die Autoren kritisierten zudem, dass die Qualität und die verwendeten Methoden zur Datenerfassung der vorliegenden Literatur teilweise sehr heterogen sind und ein "pooling" der Daten oft nicht möglich ist.…”