Salud Celular

Published literature

What the research on PEMF has actually examined

This page does not claim what the equipment will do in any given case. It lists published studies on pulsed electromagnetic fields, stating in each case who was studied and with what design, so the reader can judge.

Read it with three caveats

  1. None of the primary studies used this equipment or these settings. They examine PEMF technology in general, with different devices, intensities and protocols.
  2. The population matters. A trial in people with diabetes or hypertension supports no conclusion about a healthy person seeking recovery. The "Population" line matters more than the title.
  3. A preclinical study is not a clinical result. That is marked explicitly where it applies.
What the four primary studies actually contain A four-row table, one per primary study cited (the fifth reference, a systematic review, does not appear here because it is not a primary study: it was not carried out in people or with any equipment, it synthesises other trials), with five columns: study, population, design, whether it was carried out in people, and whether it used this equipment and these settings. Biermann 2020, healthy volunteers, clinical study, yes in people. Sun 2016, people with diabetes, randomised controlled trial, yes in people. Stewart 2020, people with hypertension, controlled clinical study, yes in people. Smith 2004, preclinical, not carried out in people. In the last column all four references carry a cross: none of them used this equipment or these settings. At the foot, the tally: four references, three in people, one preclinical, four different populations, and none with this equipment and these settings. The four primary studies, one by one STUDY POPULATION DESIGN IN PEOPLE THIS EQUIPMENT Biermann 2020 Healthy volunteers Clinical study Sun 2016 People with diabetes Randomised controlled trial Stewart 2020 People with hypertension Controlled clinical study Smith 2004 Preclinical Preclinical research Four references · three in people · one preclinical · four different populations None of them used this equipment or these settings.
The four primary studies broken down: who was studied, with what design and with what equipment. The fifth reference is a systematic review and appears in the next diagram.
Where each reference sits in the hierarchy of study designs A five-level pyramid ordering study designs from least to most able to support a clinical conclusion. At the base, preclinical research not carried out in people: one reference, Smith 2004. Above it, a clinical study without a control group: one reference, Biermann 2020. Then a controlled clinical study: one reference, Stewart 2020. Then a randomised controlled trial: one reference, Sun 2016. The top level, systematic review and meta-analysis, where the literature as a whole is weighed, holds one reference: the 2026 systematic review by Karci and colleagues, on musculoskeletal pain. Each level holds a single reference, each in a different population. Where each reference sits from least to most able to support a clinical conclusion 1 1 1 1 1 Systematic review Randomised controlled trial Controlled clinical study Clinical study Preclinical research Karci 2026 · musculoskeletal pain Sun 2016 · diabetes Stewart 2020 · hypertension Biermann 2020 · healthy volunteers Smith 2004 · not in people One reference at each level. The top one is the most direct and the least favourable. There is still no meta-analysis: the 2026 review could not pool its results.
One reference per level. The top one, the 2026 systematic review, is the most direct and the least favourable to the equipment.

References

A selection, not exhaustive. Each link goes to the PubMed record, where the original abstract can be read and the citation checked against what was published.

The influence of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT) on cutaneous blood flow in healthy volunteers

Biermann N, Sommerauer L, Diesch S, et al. · Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, 2020

Population Healthy volunteers Design Clinical study PMID 33216020

Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on peripheral blood circulation in people with diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

Sun J, Kwan RL, Zheng Y, et al. · Bioelectromagnetics, 2016

Population People with diabetes Design Randomised controlled trial PMID 27227568

Impact of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on vascular function and blood pressure in hypertensive individuals

Stewart GM, Wheatley-Guy CM, Johnson BD, et al. · Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 2020

Population Hypertensive individuals Design Controlled clinical study PMID 32401418

Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields

Smith TL, Wong-Gibbons D, Maultsby J. · Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2004

Population Preclinical — not conducted in humans Design Preclinical research PMID 14656663

Efficacy of Bio-Electro-Magnetic-Energy-Regulation Therapy in Musculoskeletal Pain Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Karcı M, Gün N, Mustafaoğlu R, et al. · Bioelectromagnetics, 2026

Population Synthesis of 7 randomised trials Design Systematic review (PRISMA) PMID 42227300

The authors’ conclusion: “the current evidence does not demonstrate that BEMER therapy is more effective than sham/placebo in reducing musculoskeletal pain.” Only one of the four sham-controlled trials found superiority.

About this last reference

It is the most directly relevant reference here, and the least favourable to the equipment. It is included for the same reason as the others: because it exists. And it is read by the same standard as the others.

  1. Its scope is musculoskeletal pain, which is one of the manufacturer’s five approved indications, but not the intended purpose the manufacturer declares: that concerns blood flow in the microcirculation.
  2. The search closed on 30 July 2023. Trials published since are not included.
  3. It is not a meta-analysis. The authors could not pool the results because, in their own words, the protocols showed “considerable heterogeneity”. Seven trials, only four sham-controlled.
  4. What it does support is what the authors themselves ask for: standardised trials are needed to establish whether any effect exists beyond placebo. That is not the same as having shown that none does.

What this page does not say

Nothing above states that BEMER treats any condition, or that a given case will reproduce the results described in these papers. The indications for a medical device are set by its manufacturer in the official documentation, not by the distributor, and that documentation is provided in full before booking. For treatment of a medical condition, a doctor is the person to advise.

To understand the technology before deciding, the manufacturer's documentation and these studies can be reviewed in a prior conversation, with no obligation.

Want to try it, with no obligation?

The first introductory session is free, takes eight minutes and commits you to nothing. Message us on WhatsApp with a time that suits and we will confirm the appointment.