
doi: 10.1007/bf02850111
pmid: 11697020
This 4-week double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy of impulse magnetic-field therapy for insomnia. One hundred one patients were randomly assigned to either active treatment (n = 50) or placebo (n = 51) and allocated to one of three diagnostic groups: (1) sleep latency; (2) interrupted sleep; or (3) nightmares. Efficacy endpoints were intensity of sleep latency, frequency of interruptions, sleepiness after rising, daytime sleepiness, difficulty with concentration, and daytime headaches. In the active-treatment group, the values of all criteria were significantly lower at study end (P < .00001). The placebo group also showed significant symptomatic improvement (P < .05), but the differences between groups were highly significant (P < .00001). Seventy percent (n = 34) of the patients given active treatment experienced substantial or even complete relief of their complaints; 24% (n = 12) reported clear improvement; 6% (n = 3) noted a slight improvement. Only one placebo patient (2%) had very clear relief; 49% (n = 23) reported slight or clear improvement; and 49% (n = 23) saw no change in their symptoms. No adverse effects of treatment were reported.
Adult, Complementary Therapies, Male, Adolescent, Middle Aged, Statistics, Nonparametric, Magnetics, Treatment Outcome, Double-Blind Method, Patient Satisfaction, Reference Values, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Humans, Female, Aged, Follow-Up Studies, Probability
Adult, Complementary Therapies, Male, Adolescent, Middle Aged, Statistics, Nonparametric, Magnetics, Treatment Outcome, Double-Blind Method, Patient Satisfaction, Reference Values, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Humans, Female, Aged, Follow-Up Studies, Probability
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 14 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
