>> CONTINUED

Double Blind Study of the therapeutic effectiveness of permanently magnetized foils on secondary myotendofasciopathies at different selected locations

Dr. med. Thomas Laser
Head physician of the Orthopaedic Department:
Orthopaedic - Chirotherapy and Social Medicine Practitioner

KLINIC BAVARIA
8351 Schaufling
by: Dr. Jens Martin

8. Conclusions

1. With reference to the tested trial criteria the therapeutic effectiveness of the magnetized foils is unmistakably higher than the placebo effect of the non-magnetized foils applied to the control group.
   
   
2. The average effectiveness comparison index for the "positive" differentiation category (see above) of the test criteria was with 4.6, the highest when treating the cervical pain syndrome, followed with 4.1 of the magnetic foil therapy for periarthropathy humeroscapularis and finally, amounted to 2.5 for the treatment of the local lumbar pain syndrome.
   
   
3. A principal statement in favor of a better application capability of the magnetic foil therapy within indication groups II and III is not possible, as the sectional groups did not always contain the same number of patients. A number of further factors, not controlled in the test, influenced conclusions to this effect.

Summary of results of test sheets 1 to 100

Evaluation prior to decoding (100 patients)

Criterion A:

Category Number of Patients Better 48 Same 43 Worse 9

Criterion B:

Category Number of Patients Reduced 33 Same 63 Increased 4

Criterion C:

Category Number of Patients Reduced 28 Same 65 Higher 7

Criterion D:

Category Number of Patients Discontinuations 6 Reduced 16 Maintained 78

Evaluation after decoding Magnetized foils total (50 patients)

Criterion A:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Better 35 70% Same 13 26% Worse 2 4%

Criterion B:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Reduced 25 50% Same 25 50% Increased 0 0%

Criterion C:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Decreased 23 46% Same 26 52% Higher 1 2%

Criterion D:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Discontinuations 4 8% Reduced 9 18% Maintained 37 74%

Magnetic foils total (Placebo control group = 50 patients)

Criterion A:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Better 13 26% Same 30 60% Worse 7 14%

Criterion B:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Reduced 8 16% Same 38 76% Increased 4 8%

Criterion C:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Decreased 5 10% Same 39 78% Higher 6 12%

Criterion D:

Category Number of Patients Percentage Discontinuations 2 4% Reduced 7 14% Maintained 41 82%

Evaluation after decoding (50p./50p.)

Patients' statements to magnetized BIOflex® foils (p) and non-magnetized BIOflex® foils (n)
List of abbreviations:

Abbreviation	Meaning
n	Number of patients treated with non magnetized foils
p	Number of patients treated with magnetized foils
g	Total number of patients
1.1	Local lumbar pain syndrome
cerv	Cervical pain syndrome
PHS	Periarthropathy (periarthritis) humeroscapularis

1. Assessment of subjective pain sensation (crit. A)

Differentiation Category	Number of Patients
Better	48
Same	43
Worse	9

p 1.1 g n 27 37 10 10 25 15 2 7 5

p cerv. g n 4 6 2 1 6 5 0 1 1

p PHS g n 4 5 1 2 12 10 0 1 1

2. Movement restriction (crit. B)

Differentiation Category	Number of Patients
Reduced	33
Same	63
Increased	4

p 1.1 g n 20 24 4 19 43 24 0 2 2

p cerv. g n 3 4 1 2 8 6 0 1 1

p PHS g n 2 5 66 4 12 6 0 1 1

3. Usage of pain killers (crit. C)

Differentiation Category	Number of Patients
Decreased	28
Reduced	65
Maintained	7

p 1.1 g n 17 20 3 21 45 24 1 4 3

p cerv. g n 3 4 1 2 8 6 0 1 1

p PHS g n 3 4 1 3 12 9 0 2 2

4. Other necessary accompanying therapy (crit. D)

Differentiation Category	Number of Patients
Discontinuations	6
Reduced	16
Worse	78

p 1.1 g n 2 4 2 7 9 2 30 56 26

p cerv. g n 1 1 0 1 3 2 3 9 6

p PHS g n 1 1 0 1 4 3 4 13 9

Test period: 01.10.1991 to 01.04.1992

KLINIK BAVARIA SCHAUFLING, April 1992

signed:
Superintendent of clinical test
Dr. med. Th. Laser

Physician authorized for test
Dr. med. J. Martin