The clinical effectiveness of magnets for people with osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

T.O. Smith (Lead Author), T. Meek, J. Cross, C.B. Hing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder, affecting millions of people worldwide. There has been limited consensus on the use of magnets for this condition. This study specifically assessed the evidence pertaining to the use of static magnets to manage symptoms in people with osteoarthritis. A systematic review of the published (AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library) and unpublished literature (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials and the United States National Institute of Health Trials Registry, Open Grey) was undertaken to July 2013. All studies assessing the clinical effects of static magnets as a therapeutic intervention for adults with osteoarthritis were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro appraisal tool. When appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted to pool data. From a total of 301 citations, six studies met the eligibility criteria. These included 374 participants, 220 allocated to a magnet group, 154 to a placebo control. The findings indicated that magnets did not significantly reduce pain or medicine requirement nor enhanced function, joint proprioception or muscle strength compared to placebo (p>0.05). There was limited evidence that higher strength magnets may have a greater effect on pain than lower field strength magnets. However, the quality of the current evidence-base was limited and underpowered. The longer-term outcomes of magnet use and limited control of field strength within the current literature suggests that further, adequately sample-sized, randomised controlled trials to assess dose-response are initially required to begin to rigorously assess the efficacy of this intervention with people with osteoarthritis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)184-192
Number of pages9
JournalCurrent Rheumatology Reviews
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Cite this