Human trials repeatedly find better osteoarthritis stiffness and function, with a probable but contested pain effect. Bone-healing evidence is mixed. Consumer whole-body mats have insufficient therapeutic evidence and are not the same treatment. The main hard risk is disruption of pacemakers and other implanted electronics; trial side-effect rates resemble placebo. Device manufacturers fund much of the positive orthopedic literature. (Full Review)
| Marker | Target | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Pain visual analog scale (0–10) | 0–1, or ≥30% drop from personal baseline | Tracks the main osteoarthritis and back-pain endpoint |
| WOMAC total (joint questionnaire) | Drop ≥ the trial-level meaningful change (~6–10 points for function) | Captures stiffness and function, not only pain |
| Timed Up and Go | <10 s in community-dwelling older adults | Mobility endpoint in the Singapore PEMF series |
| Bone mineral density T-score | > −1.0 at lumbar spine and femoral neck | Osteoporosis protocols and fracture-risk context |
| High-sensitivity C-reactive protein | <1.0 mg/L | Optional inflammation context if joint flares are being tracked |
| Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index | <5 | Sleep-indication tracking after a Pelka-style course |
Cadence: Pain and function at 2 weeks, 6–8 weeks, and 3 months; nonunion radiographs on the orthopedic schedule. Screen for implanted electronic devices and pregnancy before the first session. Osteoarthritis scores that have not moved by 8–12 weeks mark a failed course for that indication.