We have another (unpublished) clinical study of permanent magnets for
lower back pain and it too showed an improvement over placebo.

One requirement for having a successful therapy is that the magnetic
field envelops a relevant area and there are two things that need to
be in place for that to happen:

(1) The field must penetrate deeply enough and reach the target
tissue. For lower back pain that usually means getting an effective
distance of at least 2 cm. This is one good reason why the Collacott
study below failed to show any differences.

(2) Placement of the magnets - self-experimentation may work, but it
is hard to place magnets securely on the lower back and experience
with these devices shows that experience is a good thing... Find
somebody who knows something about back pain and is willing to help
you.

-Stefan Engstrom



--- In magnotherapy@y..., JBainSI@a... wrote:
> terrybenton@m... writes:
> > I need a couple of things from you good people. I have chronic
lower
> > back pain that radiates down both legs (but mostly the left leg.
It
> > stems from my lower back. I have had a surgery (lumbar
laminectomy)
> > and did not progress out of pain very far. 1) What magnetic
treatment
> > would you suggest? Why?
>
> There are four lower back pain studies that I know of, one is
negative
> --------------
> Treatment of low back pain with arrays of permanent magnets: a
controlled
> study
> McLean, MJ; Holcomb, RR; MacDonald, PW, Sanderson, L and Lombard,
K:
> 20th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, St. Pete
Beach, FL,
> June 7-13, 1998.
> ABSTRACT A 2x2 randomized double-blind cross-over study was done to
assess
> the efficacy of the Magna Bloc in reducing low back and knee pain
in 54
> patients at two centers. The Magna Bloc is a magnetic treatment
device which
> contains a quadripolar permanent magnet system. Pain was assessed
using
> visual analog scale, ranging from zero (no pain) to 100 (maximal
pain). Prior
> to any treatment the average pain rating was 52.9 + 23.3 points
(mean +
> standard deviation). With treatment, the Magna BlocTM reduced pain
by an
> average of 8.11 + 3.38 points more than did the placebo treatment
(P= 0.030).
> If confirmed, this would suggest that the Magna Bloc is effective
in reducing
> chronic low back and knee pain.
>
> Efficacy Of A Static Magnetic Device Against Knee Pain Associated
With
> Inflammatory Arthritis
> Neil Segal, Joseph Houston., Howard Fuchs, Robert Holcomb, Michael
J. McLean
> Vanderbilt University Medical School; Division of Rheumatology,
Department of
> Medicine; and, Department of Neurology Vanderbilt University
Medical Center
> Electromagnetic fields have been used therapeutically for 2000
years, for
> indications ranging from headaches to gout (1). There is
considerable
> evidence that steady direct current and time-variant
electromagnetic fields
> are produced by living bone through metabolic activity and
pizoelectric
> activity upon bone deformation respectively (2). Pulsed
electromagnetic
> fields (PEMF) have been used for acceleration of fracture and
osteotomy
> healing. These effects have been shown to be mediated by reduction
of
> osteoclastic resorption of bone, increased vascularization and
increased rate
> of bone formation by osteoblasts, and these mechanisms have been
studied on
> cellular and gene transcription levels (3). Placebo-controlled
trials have
> shown decreased pain and improved functional performance in
patients with
> osteoarthritis of the knee with PEMF therapy (4). However,
relatively few
> clinical studies have examined the effects of static magnetic
fields.
> In this study, we examined the efficacy of treatment with a static
magnetic
> field generator as adjunctive therapy for the joint pain in
patients with
> inflammatory arthritis. The MagnaBlocĂ" (MB; U.S. patent no
5,312,321) is a
> non-invasive non-significant risk device, consisting of four
permanent
> magnets arrayed with alternating polarity in a hypoallergenic
plastic case.
> The MagnaBloc™ is approximately 3.5 centimeters in diameter,
weighs
> approximately 30 grams and generates a magnetic field of 190
millitesla. This
> device reduced mechanical low back pain and knee pain significantly
more than
> placebo. Much larger time invariant magnetic fields like those
produced by
> magnetic resonance imaging devices have not been shown to be
harmful to man
> or animals
>
> Spine Fusion for Discogenic Low Back Pain: Outcomes in Patients
Treated With
> or Without Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation
> Richard A. Marks, M.D.
> Sixty-one randomly selected patients who underwent lumbar fusion
surgeries
> for discogenic low back pain between 1987 and 1994 were
retrospectively
> studied. All patients had failed to respond to preoperative
conservative
> treatments. Forty-two patients received adjunctive therapy with
pulsed
> electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation, and 19 patients received
no
> electrical stimulation of any kind. Average follow-up time was 15.6
months
> postoperatively. Fusion succeeded in 97.6% of the PEMF group and in
52.6% of
> the unstimulated group (P<.001). The observed agreement between
clinical and
> radiographic outcome was 75%. The use of PEMF stimulation enhances
bony
> bridging in lumbar spinal fusions. Successful fusion underlies a
good
> clinical outcome in patients with discogenic low back pain.
>
> Bipolar Permanent Magnets for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back
Pain A Pilot
> Study
> Collacott E A; Zimmerman JT;White DW;Rindone J P;
> JAMA. 2000;283:1322-1325
> Context Chronic low back pain is one of the most prevalent and
costly
> medical conditions in the United States. Permanent magnets have
become a
> popular treatment for various musculoskeletal conditions, including
low back
> pain, despite little scientific support for therapeutic benefit.
> Objective To compare the effectiveness of 1 type of therapeutic
magnet, a
> bipolar permanent magnet, with a matching placebo device for
patients with
> chronic low back pain.
> Design Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover
pilot study
> conducted from February 1998 to May 1999.
> Setting An ambulatory care physical medicine and rehabilitation
clinic at a
> Veterans Affairs hospital.
> Patients Nineteen men and 1 woman with stable low back pain of a
mean of 19
> years' duration, with no past use of magnet therapy for low back
pain. Twenty
> patients were determined to provide 80% power in the study at P<.05
to detect
> a difference of 2 points (the difference believed to be clinically
> significant) on a visual analog scale (VAS).
> Interventions For each patient, real and sham bipolar permanent
magnets were
> applied, on alternate weeks, for 6 hours per day, 3 days per week
for 1 week,
> with a 1-week washout period between the 2 treatment weeks.
> Main Outcome Measures Pretreatment and posttreatment pain
intensity on a
> VAS; sensory and affective components of pain on the Pain Rating
Index (PRI)
> of the McGill Pain Questionnaire; and range of motion (ROM)
measurements of
> the lumbosacral spine, compared by real vs sham treatment.
> Results Mean VAS scores declined by 0.49 (SD, 0.96) points for real
magnet
> treatment and by 0.44 (SD, 1.4) points for sham treatment (P
= .90). No
> statistically significant differences were noted in the effect
between real
> and sham magnets with any of the other outcome measures (ROM, P
= .66; PRI, P
> = .55).
> Conclusions Application of 1 variety of permanent magnet had no
effect on
> our small group of subjects with chronic low back pain.
> --------------
> The negative study was only 3 treatments, of 6 hours duration. I
would not
> expect a response that quickly as a rough rule of thumb is that
long term
> conditions tend to take longer to solve.
> However I have seen of back pain after major back surgery being
significantly
> reduced in less than 10 minutes using a only a wrist band.
>
> So, my suggestion is a back belt and a wristband to be worn 24/7.
There can
> be no guarantees of success and we do not understand the mechanism,
so find a
> distributor who will offer you a money back guarantee and if that
particular
> treatment does not work, try another.
>
> > 2) If it has worked, where do you get these magnets?
>
>
> You will find a list of manufacturers on my website. The devices
I
> recommended would cost 125 UKPounds and come with a three month
money back
> guarantee.
>
>
> And
> > are they superior to the magnetic belts you can get at the drug
> > store?
>
> There are two basic ways of applying magnets, with only one pole
against the
> body, or with both poles against the body. There are also
different
> strengths of magnets.
> And there is no way of telling which system would suit you and your
> particular condition best.
> If one system doesn't work for you, try another. That's why the
money back
> guarantee is so important.
> And your drug store does not offer it. Probably has relatively
weak magnets
> as well.
>
> > I'm thinking about investing in some magnets if it seems like a
wise
> >
>
> I think it's a wise investment, but then I would, wouldn't I.<g>
>
> Best wishes
> --
> John Bain
> UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
> http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
> Surround Sound for Television