[The effects of different types of pulsed electromagnetic fields on fibroblast cell cultures].

Revista medico-chirurgicala a Societatii de Medici si Naturalisti din Iasi · 1998 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream

BenefitLow evidencePaper 4059

Across five PEMF signal types, the most effective exposure was described as pulse bursts with a 15 mV positive signal amplitude and 15 Hz burst frequency. Intermittent stimulation (8 hours/day) was reported as more effective than continuous stimulation.

Study snapshot

PublicationRevista medico-chirurgicala a Societatii de Medici si Naturalisti din Iasi · 1998

Study typein_vitro

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study is to determine which is the most effective pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on a fibroblastic culture cells. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five different types of PEMF are generated by a pulsed generator created by the author. The electric signal, received by a reference coil is pulse bursts type. The growth rate of a fibroblastic culture cells is measured with and without different types of PEMF. RESULTS: Comparative results showed the the most effective type of PEMF is characterized by a 15 mV positive amplitude of the signal and a 15 Hz frequency of the bursts. The intermittent stimulation (8 hours/day) was more effective than continuous stimulation.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typein_vitro

Effect directionbenefit

Populationfibroblast cell cultures

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposureintermittent stimulation 8 hours/day; also continuous stimulation (duration not specified)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

growth rate of fibroblastic cell cultures

Limitations

In vitro cell culture study; findings may not generalize to humans or in vivo conditions
No sample size reported in abstract
Exposure metrics are incompletely characterized (e.g., field strength at culture, waveform details beyond amplitude/frequency)
Outcome reporting is qualitative in the abstract (no effect sizes or statistical details provided)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) generator",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "intermittent stimulation 8 hours/day; also continuous stimulation (duration not specified)"
  },
  "population": "fibroblast cell cultures",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "growth rate of fibroblastic cell cultures"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across five PEMF signal types, the most effective exposure was described as pulse bursts with a 15 mV positive signal amplitude and 15 Hz burst frequency. Intermittent stimulation (8 hours/day) was reported as more effective than continuous stimulation.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "In vitro cell culture study; findings may not generalize to humans or in vivo conditions",
    "No sample size reported in abstract",
    "Exposure metrics are incompletely characterized (e.g., field strength at culture, waveform details beyond amplitude/frequency)",
    "Outcome reporting is qualitative in the abstract (no effect sizes or statistical details provided)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "PEMF",
    "pulsed electromagnetic fields",
    "fibroblast",
    "cell culture",
    "growth rate",
    "pulse bursts",
    "15 Hz",
    "intermittent stimulation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 10756867

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library