Our standards in one paragraph
Every clinical claim is cited to a primary source. We include negative trials by design. We distinguish device classes (clinical rTMS / research T-PEMF / consumer PEMF mat) consistently. We cite UK regulatory positions (NICE, MHRA, NHS, ASA) on every condition page. We update pages every six months. We have no commercial relationship with device manufacturers and no equity in any clinic listed in our directory. We are not medical professionals and our content is not medical advice.
Source hierarchy
We rank sources in roughly this order of weight when summarising evidence:
- UK regulatory documents — NICE guidelines (NG97 dementia, NG71 Parkinson's, NG128/NG236 stroke, NG220 MS, NG59 back pain, etc.), MHRA classifications, ASA rulings, NHS commissioning documents
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed journals — preferably Cochrane, IFCN guidelines (Lefaucheur), or major-journal SRs
- Phase-3 RCTs with sham control and pre-registered endpoints
- Phase-2 RCTs and pilot work — labelled as such, used cautiously
- UK condition charities (Alzheimer's Society, Parkinson's UK, MS Society UK) — for positioning, not for trial-level evidence
- Mechanistic / preclinical evidence — used to explain biological plausibility, never as a substitute for clinical evidence
We treat manufacturer-funded trials and open-label case series cautiously, especially when claims of disease modification are involved. We disclose author conflicts of interest where they are material (e.g. Arendash 2019 TEMT pilot — manufacturer founder and CEO).
How we handle negative and null trials
Negative trials appear in our evidence tables in bold or with explicit "NULL" labels — not buried in fine print. The most commonly hidden trials in PEMF marketing include:
- Wei 2024 — rTMS without cognitive training in Alzheimer's, null on cognition
- NICHE 2018 (Harvey et al.) — multisite chronic-stroke rTMS, n=199, primary endpoint missed; FDA submission unsuccessful
- Salfinger/Hug 2015 — NMR for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy, n=94, did not meet MCID
- Brazilian PEMF RCT 2022 — whole-body PEMF in MS, null on fatigue, gait, mood, QoL
- Benninger 2011 — iTBS in Parkinson's, n=26, null
- Mostert 2005 — PEMF mattress for MS fatigue, n=25, non-significant
These are not bugs in our evidence summary. They are features. Their inclusion is part of how we establish that the rest of the summary can be trusted.
Update cadence
Every page carries a "Last reviewed" date and a "Next review" date six months later. When pivotal trials publish in between, we update the relevant pages out of cycle and update the "Last reviewed" date. Recent out-of-cycle updates include the 2024 Wei rTMS-AD null trial, the 2025 Koch 52-week precuneus extension, the 2024 Ali PD-sleep RCT, the 2023 Kull and 2022 Sun LBP meta-analyses, and the 2024 Yin post-stroke cognition network meta-analysis.
The three modality distinction
We enforce this distinction on every condition page:
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) — high-intensity (1-2 Tesla at the coil), focal cortical, clinical device, NICE-recognised for treatment-resistant depression (IPG542, 2015) only. Where trials use this technology, we identify it explicitly.
- Transcranial PEMF (T-PEMF) — research-grade, lower-intensity (used in the Danish Skogar/Malling PD trials at 50 Hz). Not the same device as a consumer PEMF mat.
- Low-intensity consumer PEMF — microtesla to a few millitesla, MHRA Class IIa wellness device, sold as a home mat or wrap. Where trials use this device class, we identify it explicitly and never let it borrow claims from the rTMS or T-PEMF literature.
Conflation of these three is the single most common error in PEMF marketing and is the one most likely to mislead a reader. We flag it consistently.
What we will not do
- We will not claim PEMF treats any condition for which the published evidence does not support that claim.
- We will not host advertising for individual PEMF devices.
- We will not write personal testimonials or first-person "this changed my life" content for clinical conditions.
- We will not cite single-case open-label reports as evidence of efficacy.
- We will not substitute manufacturer marketing copy for primary trial citations.
- We will not use generative AI to invent trial results or citations.
Independence statement
PEMF UK has no editorial relationship with any device manufacturer, clinic, or treating practitioner. Clinic directory listings are editorial — clinics do not pay for placement during the launch period, and future paid tiers (if introduced) will not alter editorial content. We do not accept advertising from device manufacturers. We do not receive commission on device sales. If we ever change this — for example by accepting display advertising or sponsored content — we will disclose it prominently on every affected page.
Contact for corrections
Errors of fact, missed citations, out-of-date regulatory positions, or methodological concerns about how we have summarised a trial — please tell us at [email protected]. We correct quickly and visibly. We do not gatekeep corrections.