A study of the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy with respect to serological grouping in rheumatoid arthritis.

Journal of the Indian Medical Association · 1998 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 4074

The study reports differential effects of PEMF therapy between serological groups in RA. Responses in seropositive patients were described as more subdued, and varying effects across symptoms suggested rheumatoid factor may be more resistant to PEMF.

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of the Indian Medical Association · 1998
Study typeunknown
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

The positive role of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known. The differential role of serological status of patients in RA is also well known. This paper presents a study of the differential effects of PEMF therapy on the two serological groups of patients. The responses of the seropositive patients are found to be more subdued. Varying effects of the therapy in alleviating the different symptomatologies indicate that the rheumatoid factor (RF) is more resistant to PEMF.

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 typeunknown
Effect directionmixed
PopulationPatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including seropositive and seronegative groups
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 62% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The study reports differential effects of PEMF therapy between serological groups in RA. Responses in seropositive patients were described as more subdued, and varying effects across symptoms suggested rheumatoid factor may be more resistant to PEMF.

Outcomes measured

  • Differential response to PEMF therapy by serological status (seropositive vs seronegative)
  • Symptom alleviation in RA
  • Rheumatoid factor (RF) response/resistance to PEMF

Limitations

  • Study design not described in abstract
  • Sample size not reported
  • Exposure parameters (frequency, intensity, duration) not reported
  • Outcome measures and statistical methods not reported
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "unknown",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including seropositive and seronegative groups",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Differential response to PEMF therapy by serological status (seropositive vs seronegative)",
    "Symptom alleviation in RA",
    "Rheumatoid factor (RF) response/resistance to PEMF"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The study reports differential effects of PEMF therapy between serological groups in RA. Responses in seropositive patients were described as more subdued, and varying effects across symptoms suggested rheumatoid factor may be more resistant to PEMF.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Study design not described in abstract",
    "Sample size not reported",
    "Exposure parameters (frequency, intensity, duration) not reported",
    "Outcome measures and statistical methods not reported"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.62,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pulsed electromagnetic field",
    "PEMF",
    "rheumatoid arthritis",
    "seropositive",
    "seronegative",
    "rheumatoid factor"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "clinical-therapeutic-emf",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "Study evaluates PEMF therapy effects in a clinical condition (rheumatoid arthritis)."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10063282

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library