Math 1030 OER

Magnets and Pain Relief Statistical Project

Is it possible that magnetic fields can reduce pain? A fascinating study by Dr. Carlos Vallbona
suggests it is.

Background
Magnetic fields have been shown to have an effect on living tissue as early as the 1930's. Plants
have been shown to have an improved growth rate when raised in a magnetic field (Mericle et al.,
1964). More recently, doctors and physical therapists have used either static or fluctuating
magnetic fields to aid in pain management, most commonly for broken bones. In the case study
presented here, Carlos Vallbona and his colleagues sought to answer the question "Can the
chronic pain experienced by postpolio patients be relieved by magnetic fields applied directly
over an identified pain trigger point?"
Mericle, R. P. et al. "Plant Growth Responses" in: Biological effects of magnetic fields. New York:
Plenium Press 1964. pp 183-195.

Vallbona, Carlos et. al., "Response of pain to static Magnetic fields in postpolio patients, a double
blind Pilot study" Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Nov. 1997, Vol 78,
American congress of rehabilitation medicine, pp 1200-1203.
Experimental Design
Summary
Fifty patients experiencing post-polio pain syndrome were recruited from the postpolio clinic of a
large rehabilitation hospital. Some of the patients were treated with an active magnetic device and
the rest were treated with an inactive device. All patients rated their pain before and after
application of the device

Details
The experimenters recruited patients who not only had post-polio syndrome but also reported
muscular or arthritic pain. These patients had significant pain for at least 4 weeks and had not
taken any painkillers or anti-inflammatories for at least 3 hours before the study. The subjects all
had a trigger point or painful region and had a body weight of less than 140% of the predicted
weight for their age and height, and had a trigger point or circumscribed painful area.
Seventy active static magnets and seventy identical inactive devices used as placebos were
supplied by BIOflex Medical Magnets in Canada. Each magnet or placebo was placed in
number coded envelopes and delivered according to its shape. This was a double-blind study so
the code for placebos and magnets was not broken until the end of the study.
One site of reported pain was evaluated and a trigger point for this pain was found by palpitation.
The patient was asked to subjectively grade pain at the trigger point under palpitation on a scale
from 0 to 10 0 representing no pain, increasing to a maximum pain of 10.
Following the initial pain assessment, an envelope containing a device was randomly selected
from the box containing both active and inactive devices. This device was applied to the pain area
for 45 minutes and then removed. The patient then evaluated his or her pain again at the region or
trigger point. This second pain rating was then scored.
Data
Active Magnets Placebos
Pre Post Change Pre Post Change

10 0 10 8 4 4
10 4 6 10 7 3
8 7 1 10 5 5
10 0 10 10 8 2
10 4 6 9 8 1
10 2 8 10 6 4
10 5 5 9 8 1
10 5 5 10 10 0
9 3 6 10 10 0
10 2 8 7 6 1
9 2 7 10 10 0
10 2 8 8 8 0
10 3 7 10 10 0
10 5 5 10 10 0
10 6 4 10 10 0
8 4 4 10 10 0
10 3 7 9 9 0
10 0 10 10 9 1
8 2 6 10 10 0
10 0 10 10 10 0
10 4 6 10 9 1
9 4 5
10 5 5
10 9 1
10 10 0
10 10 0
 10 10 0
10 10 0
8 7 1

The data for the posttest are compared as followed:

Active Magnet: mean = 4.41 . Placebo: mean = 8.43 .

range = 10 . range = 6 .

0.40

0.30
frequency
relative

0.20 Frequency
active
0.10 Bin
Frequency
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.00
placebo
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ,10
Reported Pain

The mean of the active magnets is 48% less than the mean of the placebos, and the range of the
active magnets is 67% greater than placebos range. The histogram of the placebos is very
skewed showing a lot of pain is still reported, while the histogram of the active magnets is more
uniform. More than three-fourths of the active magnet scores are less than three-fourths of the
placebos pain scores.
 Math 1030
Magnets & Pain Relief

Name ______Jake Becker______

1. Use the calculations below to compare the mean, range, and distribution (graphing both a
double histogram using relative frequency and box plots) of the pretest for the active magnet
group and the placebo group.
1a. Calculations:

Placebo: mean = 9.62 Active Magnet: mean = 9.52

range = 2 range = 3

1b. Written Answer:

[Write answer for #1 here - Both of these groups are fairly similar. The Pretest Active has a
slightly higher mean, and the Pretest Placebos range is only 1 more than Pretest Active. You can
see how both of these pretest groups parallel each other based upon their representation in the
Relative Frequency Graph: Pain threshold of 10 is 76% for Pretest Active and 71% for Pretest
Placebo, and both box graphs mimic each other well, aside from the increased distance between
min. and Q1, which is represented this way because of Pretest Placebo having a bigger range.
This congruency of pretest groups allows for a more accurate depiction of how the variable(active
magnet) will affect those being studied.

2. Calculate the pain relief, i.e. the change between the initial pain and that reported after
the treatment.
2a. Calculations
Placebo: mean = 1.09 Active Magnet: mean = 5.2
range = 5 range = 10

2b. Written Answer

The difference in change was calculated using relative frequency. This calculation allowed
for me to see the change for both Active Change and Placebo Change, and also allowed for me to
compare those changes within each group and between both groups. The outcomes are soundly
different than the graphing comparison of Pretest Pain. Placebo Change for example, has most of
its patients reporting 0 change in pain after undergoing treatment(52%), and only 25% reported
having their pain reduced by at least 2. Whereas Active Change had more balanced reporting.
24% reported having their pain reduced by 8 or more, and 24% also reported having their pain
reduced by 1 or less. The rest of the patients reported having their pain decrease somewhat by
either 4-7.

These outcomes showcase how the placebo effect didn't really augment the findings of this data,
and while some patients in the Active Change group didn't feel a change in their painthere is
still evidence showing that some patients were positively affected by the magnets.

Written Response
On the surface, this study and the statistics supporting it show that magnets do have some
affect on pain relief. The main support for this, however, doesn't come from the group who was
assigned the magnetic therapy, but rather the placebo group. Why I believe this is the case is
because of how many patients who did not receive magnet therapy reported having no reduction
of pain(52%) and for the magnet therapy it was only 14%. This accompanied with only 14% of
the patients in the magnet therapy group reporting complete reduction of pain leaves the question
of if the magnetic therapy has effective application. Overall, those who were exposed to magnet
therapy reported satisfactory change in pain(5-10 change(68%), but does this mean that magnet
therapy is beneficial?

How I would test this idea further is by allowing for the placebo group to undergo
magnetic therapy. This experimentation would allow for those conducting the study to see if
magnetic therapy affected the 75% of people who experienced no change of pain. This would then
allow for the experimenters to see if magnetic therapy has consistency in at least reducing some
pain. I would then compare the overall change in pain for those who used magnetic therapy to
those who have used other means of pain reduction. Using the same measuring parameters, we
could then find which pain reduction therapy has a great effect.

The benefits of using these tools is that it allows for a quantitative representation of things
that cant be easily quantified. This also means that one must be diligent in looking at ways to
update the methodology as well as finding ways to test the outcome for further clarification. I also
think that the visual aspect of showcasing data allows for humans to pick up on similarities as
well as difference, and this(especially in presentations) can allow for a better understanding a
clarity to take place. Overall, I think using statistics is viable, but I do think also that one can
easily abuse the interpretation of data or the methodology used in conducting experiments.
Therefore, if one is going to be able to participate in this process effectively, they need to be
constantly checking their controls and variables, in order to make sure that the data and results are
as accurate as possible.