Below is the submitted project analyzing the effectiveness of magnets in relieving pains associated with post-polio pain syndrome. Please refer to the "Math 1030" page to see my course reflection. Thank you.
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. p183-195.
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. Vol 78, American congress of rehabilitation medicine, p 1200-1203.
Experimental Design
Summary Patients experiencing post-polio pain syndrome were recruited. Half of the patients were treated with an active magnetic device and half were treated with an inactive device. All patients rated their pain before and after application of the device
Details The experimenters recruited 50 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.
The magnets and placebos (described below) were supplied in equal numbers from Bioflex. Each magnet or placebo was placed in number coded envelopes and delivered according to its shape. 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 1 to 10 (1 is the least pain, increasing to 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 is the score analyzed here.
Materials The magnets used in the study were Bioflex magnets. The magnetic field consists of concentrically arranged circles of alternating magnetic polarity. Seventy active devices and seventy identical inactive devices were used.
Data
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. Tell why you think the groups appear to be similar or different.
The two are very similar, as they should be since this is the pre-treatment data. Each group should look roughly identical from the beginning, hence the cluster of high pain ratings. This shows we have a fair sample.
Compare the mean, range, and distribution (using both histograms and box plots) of the post-test for the active magnet group and the placebo group. Tell why you think the outcomes appear to be similar or different.
The post-treatment results appear to show that the magnet treatment is more effective as the majority of the placebo participants are in higher degrees of pain compared to those treated with magnets. Especially where the placebo patients have the higher average pain rating. But note, on the box plot, that there are still participants that have been treated that have a high degree of pain.
Calculate the “pain relief,” i.e. the change between the initial pain and that reported after the treatment. Explain how you calculated the difference and what the numbers mean. Compare the mean, range, and distribution (using both histograms and box plots) of the change for the active magnet group and the placebo group. Tell why you think the outcomes appear to be similar or different.
The above graphs show how much a patient’s pain rating changed during treatment. It is clear that the magnet treated patients had greater decreases in pain compared to the placebo patients. Of the patients that had no change, the placebo patients had the higher total. The average placebo patient’s pain decreased roughly by 1 point, where the average magnet treated patient’s pain decreased by 5 points.
Conclusion
The statistics in this experiment show that magnets do indeed help relieve types of pain by a large margin, while using placebos is only effective very rarely. The data presented shows major improvements in the pain ratings of the magnet treated patients—up to a full 10-degree scale, with only 3 people of 29 patients not being able to recover—while only half of the group of patients given the placebos show signs of improvement, and only up to a 5-degree scale. This experiment is limited however because the placebos produced a significant result, though not as significant as the magnets would do, which would be the placebo effect at work. Additionally, the study was swayed in favor of the magnets from the beginning because there were more patients treated with magnets than placebos. In essence, this is a good study a couple minor flaws.