A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Static magnetic field on wound healing in rodents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study reviews preclinical research on the effects of static magnetic fields on wound healing in rodents.
  • Eight randomized trials were analyzed, showing no significant difference in wound area between the experimental and control groups, but a notable reduction in healing time and improved tensile strength in the experimental group.
  • The findings suggest that while the overall effect is not statistically significant, static magnetic fields may still positively influence wound healing outcomes, notably in terms of healing time and tissue strength.

Article Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically review the preclinical studies that have applied the static magnetic field to wound healing.

Methods: The search strategy was performed in databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL and Cochrane Database, and in gray literature. The inclusion criteria were: Pre-clinical studies, either with a separate control/sham parallel-group or cross-over design in rodents that used magnets to treat skin injuries anywhere on the body. The risk of bias tool was the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE).

Results: Eight randomized clinical trials were included. Wound rate area DM experimental vs DM sham [MD = 2.19, 95% CI, (-0.61, 4.99), I 25%,  = 0.13] and wound rate area - DM experimental vs non-DM control [MD = 3.33, 95% CI, (-1.86, 8.55), I 63%,  = 0.21] were not statistically significant. A significant improvement in gross healing time in the experimental group DM compared to the DM sham [MD = -4.48, IC 95%, (-7.88, -1.07), I 38%,  = 0.010]. The same way tensile strength - DM and non DM subgroup analysis showed improved tensile strength in both the non-diabetic and diabetic experiment groups [SMD = 1.36, 95% CI, (0.60, 2.12), I 0%,  = 0.0005].

Conclusions: Although not statistically significant, the static magnetic field had a positive effect on wound healing in rodents compared to the sham or control group. There was a significant improvement in the assessment of healing time and skin tensile strength.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2024.2448186DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

static magnetic
12
magnetic field
12
tensile strength
12
field wound
8
wound healing
8
healing rodents
8
systematic review
8
wound rate
8
rate area
8
area experimental
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!