A network meta-analysis in the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation pooled 37 randomized trials with 3,325 patients to compare electrical-stimulation therapies for bone healing. Across the trials, electrical stimulation improved healing rates compared with control treatment, a relative risk of 1.18. Among the specific methods, pulsed electromagnetic fields and combined magnetic fields stood out, with combined magnetic fields showing the largest effect.
The authors, a group based in China, rank pulsed electromagnetic fields as the most effective single modality for bone healing overall, while a different method, non-invasive interactive neurostimulation, ranked highest for functional recovery. They note the usual limitation of this kind of pooled analysis, that the underlying trials vary in quality, and call for more high-quality randomized trials before the results guide routine clinical practice.
Quotes
"This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation (ES) in promoting bone healing and to identify the optimal modality."
"A total of 37 RCTs (3,325 subjects) were included."
"Overall, ES therapy improved bone healing rates compared to controls (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.28), with pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF; RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41) and combined magnetic fields (CMF; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.14 -1.95) being particularly effective."
"ES therapy promotes bone healing, with PEMF appearing the most effective modality."
"However, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and guide clinical application."
Location
ð China
Comparative Efficacy of Electrical Stimulation Therapies for Bone Healing: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Liu G, Sun J, Xie W, Li H, Yang G, Ji B (2026) American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Journal Level 1â
