RF Safe

Pulsed electromagnetic fields in experimental cutaneous wound healing in rats.

The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation · 1996 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream
BenefitLow evidencePaper 4266

In rats, wound area and perimeter measures were significantly lower in the PEMF group (20 mT) versus sham controls at days 7, 14, and 21 (p<0.01). Versus topical nitrofurazone, the PEMF group showed significantly lower values at day 21 only (p<0.01).

Study snapshot

PublicationThe Journal of burn care & rehabilitation · 1996
Study typeanimal
Reported directionBenefit
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields are now being used in many diseases such as osseous, ligamental, cartilaginous, or nervous reparation, diabetes, and myocardial or cerebral ischemia. Although many publications show the usefulness of magneto-therapy, discrepancies exist about the utility of electromagnetic fields in skin wound healing. The objective of this work was to study the effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on wound healing in rats. Twenty-two male Wistar rats were used; a circular lesion was made in the back of each animal. They were divided into three groups: group C (control) with sham treatment (n = 8), group NF, treated with topical nitrofurazone solution (n = 7), and group PEMF, treated with pulsed electromagnetic fields of 20 mT (n = 7). The treatments were 35 minutes twice a day. The absolute and relative values of the area and perimeter of the wounds showed significantly lower values in the PEMF group at days 7, 14, and 21 compared with those in group C (p < 0.01, analysis of variance), whereas the PEMF group showed significantly lower values at day 21 only compared with the NF group (p < 0.01, analysis of variance). The results suggest a significant beneficial stimulation in the wound healing process in rats treated with PEMF, which could lead to the development of a practical tool for research and clinical use.

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 typeanimal
Effect directionbenefit
PopulationMale Wistar rats with experimental circular cutaneous back wounds
Sample size22
Exposure35 minutes twice a day
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 86% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In rats, wound area and perimeter measures were significantly lower in the PEMF group (20 mT) versus sham controls at days 7, 14, and 21 (p<0.01). Versus topical nitrofurazone, the PEMF group showed significantly lower values at day 21 only (p<0.01).

Outcomes measured

  • Wound area (absolute and relative)
  • Wound perimeter (absolute and relative)

Limitations

  • Animal study (rats), limiting direct applicability to humans
  • Small group sizes (n=7–8 per group)
  • Exposure parameters incompletely described (e.g., frequency/pulse characteristics not reported in abstract)
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) therapy",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "35 minutes twice a day"
  },
  "population": "Male Wistar rats with experimental circular cutaneous back wounds",
  "sample_size": 22,
  "outcomes": [
    "Wound area (absolute and relative)",
    "Wound perimeter (absolute and relative)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In rats, wound area and perimeter measures were significantly lower in the PEMF group (20 mT) versus sham controls at days 7, 14, and 21 (p<0.01). Versus topical nitrofurazone, the PEMF group showed significantly lower values at day 21 only (p<0.01).",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "Animal study (rats), limiting direct applicability to humans",
    "Small group sizes (n=7–8 per group)",
    "Exposure parameters incompletely described (e.g., frequency/pulse characteristics not reported in abstract)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.86,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pulsed electromagnetic fields",
    "PEMF",
    "magnetotherapy",
    "cutaneous wound healing",
    "rats",
    "nitrofurazone",
    "sham control",
    "20 mT"
  ],
  "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: 10.1097/00004630-199611000-00009
PubMed: 8951540

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library