Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Sep 3;2015(9):CD002930.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002930.pub6.

Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers

Zoriah Aziz  1 , Sally E M Bell-Syer
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers

Zoriah Aziz et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers are defined as areas "of localized damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure, shear, friction and/or the combination of these". Electromagnetic therapy (EMT), in which electrodes produce an electromagnetic field across the wound, may improve healing of chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers.

Objectives: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers.

Search methods: For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 10 June 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to 10 June 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 10 June 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2014 to 10 June 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2014 to 6 July 2012).

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment.

Data collection and analysis: For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors.

Main results: We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing.

Authors' conclusions: The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Zoriah Aziz: none Sally Bell‐Syer: none

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electromagnetic therapy versus sham electromagnetic therapy, Outcome 1 Pressure ulcers healed within 8 weeks of treatment.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electromagnetic therapy versus standard therapy alone, Outcome 1 Pressure ulcers healed within 8 weeks of treatment duration.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electromagnetic therapy versus sham electromagnetic therapy, Outcome 1 Healed ulcers at one week.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Electromagnetic therapy versus sham electromagnetic therapy, Outcome 1 Percent reduction in wound surface area at one week.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Comorosan 1993 {published data only}
    1. Comorosan S, Vasilco R, Arghiropol M, Paslaru L, Jieanu V, Stelea S. The effect of Diapulse therapy on the healing of decubitus ulcer. Romanian Journal of Physiology 1993;30(1‐2):41‐5. - PubMed
Salzberg 1995 {published data only}
    1. Salzberg CA, Cooper‐Vastola SA, Perez F, Viehbeck MG, Byrne DW. The effects of non‐thermal pulsed electromagnetic energy on wound healing of pressure ulcers in spinal cord‐injured patients: a randomized, double‐blind study. Ostomy Wound Management 1995;41:42‐4, 46, 48. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Cooper‐Vastola 1983 {published data only}
    1. Cooper‐Vastola SA, Salzberg CA, Viehbeck MG, Perez FJ. A randomized, double‐blind study on the effects of Diapulse on wound healing in pressure ulcers. Journal of American Paraplegia Society 1983;16(4):263‐4.
Goldin 1981 {published data only}
    1. Goldin JH, Broadbent NRG, Nancarrow JD, Marshall T. The effects of Diapulse on the healing of wounds: a double‐blind randomised controlled trial in man. British Journal of Plastic Surgery 1981;34(3):267‐70. - PubMed
Gupta 2009 {published data only}
    1. Gupta A, Taly AB, Srivastava A, Kumar S, Thyloth M. Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in healing of pressure ulcers: a randomized control trial. Neurology India 2009;57(5):622‐6. - PubMed
Itoh 1991 {published data only}
    1. Itoh M, Montemayor JS Jr, Matsumoto E, Eason A, Lee MH, Folk FS. Accelerated wound healing of pressure ulcers by pulsed high peak power electromagnetic energy (Diapulse). Decubitus 1991;4(1):24‐5, 29‐34. - PubMed
Seaborne 1996 {published data only}
    1. Seaborne D, Quirion‐DeGirardi C, Rousseau M, Rivest M, Lambert J. The treatment of pressure sores using pulsed electromagnetic energy (PEME). Physiotherapy Canada 1996;48(2):131‐7.
Ullah 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ullah MO. A study to detect the efficacy of Micro‐current Electrical Therapy on decubitus wound. Journal of Medical Sciences 2007;7(8):1320‐4.

Additional references

Athanasiou 2007
    1. Athanasiou A, Karkambounas S, Batistatou A, Lykoudis E, Katsaraki A, Kartsiouni T, et al. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on secondary skin wound healing: an experimental study. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(5):362‐8. - PubMed
Bennett 2004
    1. Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age and Ageing 2004;33(3):230‐5. - PubMed
Clark 1994
    1. Clark M. The financial cost of pressure ulcer in the UK National Health Services. Proceedings of 4th European Conference on Avdances in Wound Management. London: Macmillan, 1994:48‐51.
EPUAP 2002
    1. EPUAP 2002 European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Summary report on the prevalence of pressure ulcers. EPUAP Review 2002;4(2):49‐57.
EPUAP‐NPUAP 2009
    1. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Treatment of pressure ulcers: Quick Reference Guide. Washington DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, 2009.
Gordon 2007
    1. Gordon GA. Designed electromagnetic pulsed therapy: clinical applications. Journal of Cellular Physiology 2007;212(3):579‐82. - PubMed
Haddad 2007
    1. Haddad JB, Obolensky AG, Shinnick P. The biologic effects and the therapeutic mechanism of action of electric and electromagnetic field stimulation on bone and cartilage: new findings and a review of earlier work. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2007;13(5):485‐90. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT and Altman DG on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group (Editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Kaltenthaler 2001
    1. Kaltenthaler E, Whitfield MD, Walters SJ, Akehurst RL, Paisley S. UK, USA and Canada: how do their pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence compare?. Journal of Wound Care 2001;10(1):530‐5. - PubMed
Kenkre 1996
    1. Kenkre JE, Hobbs FD, Carter YH, Holder RL, Holmes EP. A randomized controlled trial of electromagnetic therapy in the primary care management of venous leg ulceration. Family Practice 1996;13(3):236‐41. - PubMed
Kitchen 2002
    1. Kitchen S. Electrotherapy: Evidence‐Based Practice. Eleventh. Edinburgh: New York: Churchill‐Livingstone, 2002.
Lee 1993
    1. Lee RC, Canaday DJ, Doong H. A review of the biophysical basis for the clinical application of electric fields in soft‐tissue repair. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation 1993;14(3):319‐35. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J, on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Markoll 2003
    1. Markoll R, Da Silva Ferreira DM, Toohil TK. Pulsed Signal Therapy®: An overview. APLAR Journal of Rheumatology 2003;6(1):89‐100.
Markov 2007
    1. Markov MS. Expanding use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapies. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 2007;26(3):257‐74. - PubMed
McGaughey 2009
    1. McGaughey H, Dhamija S, Oliver S, Porter‐Armstrong A, McDonough S. Pulsed electromagnetic energy in management of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Physical Therapy Reviews 2009;14(2):132‐46.
Ryaby 1998
    1. Ryaby JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic and electric fields on fracture healing. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1998;355(Suppl):S205‐15. - PubMed
Schulz 2010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340 Mar 23:c332. - PMC - PubMed
Shupak 2006
    1. Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, Rollman GB, Prato FS, Thomas AW. Exposure to a specific pulsed low‐frequency magnetic field: a double‐blind placebo‐controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Research and Management 2006;11(2):85‐90. - PMC - PubMed
SIGN 2010
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/filters.html#random (accessed 2 June 2010).
Stiller 1992
    1. Stiller MJ, Pak GH, Shupack JL, Thaler S, Kenny C, Jondreau L. A portable pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) device to enhance healing of recalcitrant venous ulcers: a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. British Journal of Dermatology 1992;127(2):147‐54. - PubMed
Thomas 2007
    1. Thomas AW, Graham K, Prato FS, McKay J, Forster PM, Moulin DE, et al. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial using a low‐frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Research and Management 2007;12(4):249‐58. - PMC - PubMed
Touche Ross 1993
    1. Touche Ross, Company. The costs of pressure sores. Report to the Department of Health, UK 1993.

Publication types