Hi my name is Scott Smart. I am a physical therapist but I also have
osteoarthritis in my knees, fibromyalgia, and chronic back pain.  I am
currently being treated by a coworker Steve Pratt who is a physical
therapist that specializes in magnetic therapy.

I just want to thank you for having a group like this to share
successes and frustrations with.  One of my current successes is using
magnetic therapy to manage my pain.  So I wanted to share some
articles with you that I have found informative and helpful.  Also if
you would like Steve's FREE article on managing chronic pain just send
an email to freereports@myquickresponse.com.

The research abstracts are listed below:

Effects of static magnets on chronic knee pain and physical function:
a double-blind study.

Hinman MR, Ford J, Heyl H.
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Texas Medical Branch,
Galveston, USA.

CONTEXT: Static magnets have become an increasingly popular
alternative therapy for individuals with musculoskeletal pain despite
limited scientific evidence to support their efficacy or safety.

Objective: To determine the effects of static magnets on the pain and
functional limitations associated with chronic knee pain due to
degenerative joint disease.

Design: Double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Setting: Pretests and posttests were conducted in an academic health
science center.

Participants: Forty-three ambulatory subjects with chronic pain in 1
or both knee joints who were recruited from outpatient clinics or who
volunteered to participate.

Intervention: Subjects wore pads containing magnets or placebos over
their painful knee joints for 2 weeks.

Main Outcome Measures: Self-administered ratings of pain and physical
function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities
Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and a timed 15-m (50-ft) walk.

Results: Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed significantly
greater improvements in the group wearing magnets (P=.002). Univariate
analyses indicated that comparative changes in self-rated pain and
physical function (P=.002 and .001, respectively) were greater than
changes in gait speed (P=.042).

Conclusions: The application of static magnets over painful knee
joints appears to reduce pain and enhance functional movement.
However, further study is needed to determine the physiological
mechanisms responsible for this analgesic effect.

Source: Altern Ther Health Med 2002 Jul-Aug;8(4):50-5
PMID: 12126173 [PubMed]

The Effect of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields in the Treatment of
Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Cervical Spine. Report of Randomized,
Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled Trials

Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Markoll R.
Department of Medicine, Danbury Hospital, CT.

Abstract:

Objective: We conducted a randomized, double blind clinical trial to
determine the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) in
the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and cervical spine.

Methods: A controlled trial of 18 half-hour active or placebo
treatments was conducted in 86 patients with OA of the knee and 81
patients with OA of the cervical spine, in which pain was evaluated
using a 10 cm visual analog scale, activities of daily living using a
series of questions (answered by the patient as never, sometimes, most
of the time, or always), pain on passive motion (recorded as none,
slight, moderate, or severe), and joint tenderness (recorded using a
modified Ritchie scale). Global evaluations of improvement were made
by the patient and examining physician. Evaluations were made at
baseline, midway, end of treatment, and one month after completion of
treatment.

Results: Matched pair t tests showed extremely significant changes
from baseline for the treated patients in both knee and cervical spine
studies at the end of treatment and the one month followup
observations, whereas the changes in the placebo patients showed
lesser degrees of significance at the end of treatment, and had lost
significance for most variables at the one month followup. Means of
the treated group of patients with OA of the knee showed greater
improvement from baseline values than the placebo group by the end of
treatment and at the one month followup observation. Using the
2-tailed t test, at the end of treatment the differences in the means
of the 2 groups reached statistical significance for pain, pain on
motion, and both the patient overall assessment and the physician
global assessment. The means of the treated patients with OA of the
cervical spine showed greater improvement from baseline than the
placebo group for most variables at the end of treatment and one month
followup observations; these differences reached statistical
significance at one or more observation points for pain, pain on
motion, and tenderness.

Conclusions: PEMF has therapeutic benefit in painful OA of the knee or
cervical spine.

Source: J Rheumatol 1994 Oct;21(10):1903-11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low-amplitude, extremely low frequency magnetic fields for the
treatment of osteoarthritic knees: a double-blind clinical study.

Jacobson JI, Gorman R, Yamanashi WS, Saxena BB, Clayton L.

Institute of Theoretical Physics and Advanced Studies for Biophysical
Research, Perspectivism Foundation, 2006 Mainsail Cir, Jupiter, FL
33477-1418, USA. drjjacobson@aol.com

Context: Noninvasive magnetotherapeutic approaches to bone healing
have been successful in past clinical studies.

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of low-amplitude, extremely
low frequency magnetic fields on patients with knee pain due to
osteoarthritis.

Design: Placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical study.
SETTING: 4 outpatient clinics.

Participants: 176 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups,
the placebo group (magnet off) or the active group (magnet on).

Intervention: 6-minute exposure to each magnetic field signal using 8
exposure sessions for each treatment session, the number of treatment
sessions totaling 8 during a 2-week period, yielded patients being
exposed to uniform magnetic fields for 48 minutes per treatment
session 8 times in 2 weeks. The magnetic fields used in this study
were generated by a Jacobson Resonator, which consists of two 18-inch
diameter (46-cm diameter) coils connected in series, in turn connected
to a function generator via an attenuator to obtain the specific
amplitude and frequency. The range of magnetic field amplitudes used
was from 2.74 x 10(-7) to 3.4 x 10(-8) G, with corresponding
frequencies of 7.7 to 0.976 Hz.

Outcome Measures: Each subject rated his or her pain level from 1
(minimal) to 10 (maximal) before and after each treatment and 2 weeks
after treatment. Subjects also recorded their pain intensity in a
diary while outside the treatment environment for 2 weeks after the
last treatment session (session 8) twice daily: upon awakening (within
15 minutes) and upon retiring (just before going to bed at night).

Results: Reduction in pain after a treatment session was significantly
(P < .001) greater in the magnet-on group (46%) compared to the
magnet-off group (8%).

Conclusion: Low-amplitude, extremely low frequency magnetic fields are
safe and effective for treating patients with chronic knee pain due to
osteoarthritis.

Source: Altern Ther Health Med 2001 Sep-Oct;7(5):54-64, 66-9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A double-blind trial of the clinical effects of pulsed electromagnetic
fields in osteoarthritis.

Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Dyer RH Jr, Fielding LP, Miner WK, Markoll R.
Department of Medicine (Rheumatology), Danbury Hospital, CT 06810.

Objective: Further evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF),
which have been observed to produce numerous biological effects, and
have been used to treat delayed union fractures for over a decade.

Methods: In a pilot, double-blind randomized trial, 27 patients with
osteoarthritis (OA), primarily of the knee, were treated with PEMF.
Treatment consisted of 18 half-hour periods of exposure over about 1
month in a specially designed noncontact, air-coil device.
Observations were made on 6 clinical variables at baseline, midpoint
of therapy, end of treatment and one month later; 25 patients
completed treatment

Results: An average improvement of 23-61% occurred in the clinical
variables observed with active treatment, while 2 to 18% improvement
was observed in these variables in placebo treated control patients.
No toxicity was observed.

Conclusion: The decreased pain and improved functional performance of
treated patients suggests that this configuration of PEMF has
potential as an effective method of improving symptoms in patients
with OA. This method warrants further clinical investigation.

Source:J Rheumatol 1993 Mar;20(3):456-60