Effects of a Concentric Rare-Earth Magnet on Menstrual Cycle Pain: A Parallel Group Randomized Pilot Study
- PMID: 33628670
- PMCID: PMC7894227
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.12801
Effects of a Concentric Rare-Earth Magnet on Menstrual Cycle Pain: A Parallel Group Randomized Pilot Study
Abstract
Background Based on prior reports of the use of magnets to treat pain, our goal was to determine if a concentric rare-earth alternating-pole magnet reduced period pain versus a sham-magnet. Methods Participants were females (N=36, 18 to 35 years) who regularly experienced menstrual period pain ≥ six on the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) of 0-10. Subjects were excluded if they took pain medication on the study day or had implanted pacemakers/metallic devices or secondary dysmenorrhea. Participants were randomized to wear a concentric neodymium-iron boron active-magnet (surface-field of 0.4 Tesla) or a sham magnet. The participant and investigator applying the device were blinded to the device used. The device was placed at the abdominal location of the reported greatest pain for 40-minutes, during which time the subject was able to conduct the normal activity. Pain scores were reported prior to device wearing and afterward. Participants with post-treatment NPRS ratings reduced by ≥ 35% from their pretreatment pain ratings were scored as having reduced pain; reductions < 35% were scored as no meaningful pain change. The threshold of 35% was chosen based on a survey of 10 women as to the level of pain reduction they viewed as meaningful to them. Of the 36 women in this pilot study, 19 wore an active-magnet and 17 wore a sham-magnet. Analyses were based on chi-square and Mann-Whitney statistical tests. Results Pre-treatment pain scores (mean ± SD) were similar for both groups. Magnet-vs-sham pre-treatment scores were, respectively, 7.16 ± 0.85 vs. 6.94 ± 1.20 (p=0.330). Corresponding median values for the magnet (N=19) and sham (N=17) groups respectively were seven pre-treatment and four post-treatment vs. six pre-treatment and six post-treatment. Post-treatment scores for magnet treated subjects (4.16 ± 2.20) were significantly less (p=0.027) than for sham-treated (5.53 ± 1.50). Of the 19 who wore a magnet, 11 experienced meaningful pain-reduction, and eight did not. Of the 17 who wore a sham, three experienced meaningful pain-reduction, and 14 did not. Magnet and sham wearing responses were statistically significant via chi-square analysis (chi-square=6.12, p=0.013). Percentage reduction in pain score was 41.8% ± 31.1% for magnet-treated vs. 20.8% ± 16.1%, for sham-treated (p<0.05). Conclusions Results suggest that short-term wearing of the magnet herein investigated, produces a meaningful menstrual-pain reduction in some women. Thus, further expanded research seems warranted to determine if longer wearing times result in even greater pain reductions.
Keywords: dysmenorrhea; magnetic therapy; menstrual pain; period-pain; static magnetic field.
Copyright © 2021, Mayrovitz et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
![Figure 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/7894227/bin/cureus-0013-00000012801-i01.gif)
![Figure 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/7894227/bin/cureus-0013-00000012801-i02.gif)
![Figure 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/7894227/bin/cureus-0013-00000012801-i03.gif)
Similar articles
-
Finger skin blood perfusion during exposure of ulnar and median nerves to the static magnetic field of a rare-earth magnet: A randomized pilot study.Electromagn Biol Med. 2021 Jan 2;40(1):1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1856682. Epub 2020 Dec 5. Electromagn Biol Med. 2021. PMID: 33283550 Clinical Trial.
-
A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study to investigate the effectiveness of a static magnet to relieve dysmenorrhea.J Altern Complement Med. 2005 Aug;11(4):681-7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2005.11.681. J Altern Complement Med. 2005. PMID: 16131292 Clinical Trial.
-
Static magnetic field therapy for symptomatic diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 May;84(5):736-46. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00106-0. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003. PMID: 12736891 Clinical Trial.
-
Novel Augmentation Strategies in Major Depression.Dan Med J. 2017 Apr;64(4):B5338. Dan Med J. 2017. PMID: 28385173 Review.
-
Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 30;(4):CD002126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 12;6:CD002126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub4. PMID: 25924648 Updated. Review.
References
-
- Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy in chronic pelvic pain: a double-blind pilot study. Brown CS, Ling FW, Wan JY, Pilla AA. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1581–1587. - PubMed
-
- Effect of local exposure to inhomogeneous static magnetic field on stomatological pain sensation - a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Laszlo JF, Farkas P, Reiczigel J, Vago P. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012;88:430–438. - PubMed
-
- Influence of local exposure to static magnetic field on pain perception and bone turnover of osteoporotic patients with vertebral deformity - a randomized controlled trial. Meszaros S, Tabak AG, Horvath C, Szathmari M, Laszlo JF. Int J Radiat Biol. 2013;89:877–885. - PubMed
-
- Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: a double-blind pilot study. Vallbona C, Hazlewood CF, Jurida G. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1200–1203. - PubMed
-
- Spinal cord stimulation with a dual quadripolar surgical lead placed in general anesthesia is effective in treating intractable low back and leg pain. Duyvendak W. Neuromodulation. 2007;10:113–119. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources