[A permanent magnetic field in the combined treatment of acute endometritis after an artificial abortion].

Voprosy kurortologii, fizioterapii, i lechebnoi fizicheskoi kultury · 1996 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream
BenefitLow evidencePaper 4247

In a combined treatment approach that included a constant (permanent) magnetic field, application of the magnetic field was associated with a significant clinical response and reduced hospital stay, attributed to a positive effect on healing of the endometria…

Study snapshot

PublicationVoprosy kurortologii, fizioterapii, i lechebnoi fizicheskoi kultury · 1996
Study typeother
Reported directionBenefit
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

117 patients with acute endometritis after induced abortion were examined using markers of wound process phases and treated according to the original method. This consists in combination of constant magnetic field with other modalities. Application of the constant magnetic field produced a significant clinical response and reduced the hospital stay through positive effect on healing of the endometrial wound.

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 typeother
Effect directionbenefit
PopulationPatients with acute endometritis after induced (artificial) abortion
Sample size117
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a combined treatment approach that included a constant (permanent) magnetic field, application of the magnetic field was associated with a significant clinical response and reduced hospital stay, attributed to a positive effect on healing of the endometrial wound.

Outcomes measured

  • Clinical response
  • Hospital stay duration
  • Healing of endometrial wound (wound process phase markers)

Limitations

  • No details provided in the abstract on study design, randomization, blinding, or control conditions
  • Magnetic field parameters (strength, exposure duration, application protocol) not reported
  • Other treatment modalities were used concurrently, so the independent effect of the magnetic field cannot be determined from the abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "therapeutic permanent/constant magnetic field",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Patients with acute endometritis after induced (artificial) abortion",
  "sample_size": 117,
  "outcomes": [
    "Clinical response",
    "Hospital stay duration",
    "Healing of endometrial wound (wound process phase markers)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a combined treatment approach that included a constant (permanent) magnetic field, application of the magnetic field was associated with a significant clinical response and reduced hospital stay, attributed to a positive effect on healing of the endometrial wound.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "No details provided in the abstract on study design, randomization, blinding, or control conditions",
    "Magnetic field parameters (strength, exposure duration, application protocol) not reported",
    "Other treatment modalities were used concurrently, so the independent effect of the magnetic field cannot be determined from the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "constant magnetic field",
    "permanent magnetic field",
    "magnetotherapy",
    "acute endometritis",
    "induced abortion",
    "wound healing",
    "hospital stay"
  ],
  "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: 9103021

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library