The evidence for EMTT is promising but still thin. The strongest study is a 2026 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 126 people with knee, shoulder or degenerative low back pain. A 2018 shoulder trial supports adding EMTT to shockwave. The rest of the research is smaller, not placebo-controlled, or done in the laboratory, and there is no meta-analysis of EMTT used alone. This page ranks the main studies and explains what each can and cannot tell you.
How to read the evidence
Not all studies count equally. From strongest to weakest, the usual order is:
- Meta-analyses that pool several good trials.
- Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, where neither patients nor assessors know who got the real treatment.
- Randomized trials without a placebo, where patients know which treatment they received.
- Case series and case reports without a comparison group.
- Laboratory studies on cells or animals, which show a possible mechanism but not a patient benefit.
For EMTT, there is nothing yet at the top level for EMTT alone. Most of the clinical evidence sits at levels 2 and 3.
The main clinical studies
| Study | Design and size | What was compared | Main finding | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hollander et al., 2026 | Double-blind RCT, 126 patients | EMTT vs. sham, knee osteoarthritis, rotator cuff, degenerative low back | Less pain and better physical function at 6 and 12 weeks | One center; 12-week follow-up; blinding imperfect |
| Klüter et al., 2018 | RCT, 86 patients | Shockwave + EMTT vs. shockwave + sham EMTT, rotator cuff tendinopathy | Greater pain relief and shoulder function with the combination at 24 weeks | Does not test EMTT alone |
| Krath et al., 2017 | RCT, 87 patients | Physiotherapy and medication with or without EMTT, nonspecific low back pain | Greater reduction in pain and disability with EMTT added | No sham; patients knew their group |
| Gerdesmeyer et al., 2023 | Double-blind RCT, 43 patients | EMTT vs. placebo, shoulder tendon-attachment pain | Full results not published | Small; available only as a one-page abstract |
The strongest trial: EMTT on its own
The 2026 trial by Hollander and colleagues is the largest double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of EMTT used alone so far. Patients received eight weekly sessions of active or sham EMTT. At 12 weeks, average pain was 2.2 out of 10 with EMTT and 4.2 with sham, from a starting point of about 5. Physical function scores improved more with EMTT, while mental-health scores did not differ. Skin redness and discomfort during treatment were more common with active EMTT, and no serious adverse events were reported. We cover the details in EMTT on its own: what the largest placebo-controlled trial found.
The best combination trial: EMTT added to shockwave
Klüter and colleagues randomized 86 people with rotator cuff tendinopathy. Everyone received three shockwave sessions, plus eight sessions of either active or sham EMTT. Both groups improved. At 24 weeks:
- Pain fell from about 6.2 to 0.7 out of 10 with active EMTT, and from about 6.0 to 1.9 with sham EMTT.
- Shoulder function (Constant-Murley score) rose from about 59 to 93 with active EMTT, and from about 63 to 83 with sham EMTT.
This is the longest controlled follow-up in the EMTT research so far, and the main support for combining EMTT with shockwave. Because every patient had shockwave, it shows the added effect of EMTT on top of shockwave, not the effect of EMTT alone. The device manufacturer supplied the equipment. How we decide between one treatment and both is covered in EMTT alone or with shockwave?
Supporting trials
Low back pain (2017). Krath and colleagues randomized 87 people with chronic nonspecific low back pain to physiotherapy and medication with or without eight EMTT sessions. Twelve weeks after treatment, pain had fallen about 65% with EMTT added and about 49% without it, and disability scores improved more as well. There was no sham group, so part of the difference may reflect the extra attention of an added treatment. More in EMTT for low back pain.
Shoulder (2023). Gerdesmeyer and colleagues reported a smaller double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 43 people with shoulder tendon-attachment pain. It is available only as a one-page abstract, so its full results cannot be assessed.
Early and laboratory research
A few small reports without a comparison group describe improvement after EMTT. Reports like these can suggest what to study next. They cannot show that EMTT caused the improvement.
For bone healing, a 2026 scoping review found nine studies: two laboratory studies, six case reports and one pilot clinical trial, with no randomized trials. Laboratory work on human bone and stem cells supports a plausible mechanism, not a proven patient outcome.
Reviews of the field
A 2026 systematic review in Biomedicines included 28 studies of EMTT and lower-intensity pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatments. High-intensity protocols were more consistently associated with improvement, while low-intensity protocols, below about 5 mT, often did no better than placebo or comparison treatments. The authors called EMTT and PEMF promising additions to treatment, but noted that differences between studies and the frequent use of combined treatments make the findings exploratory. No meta-analysis has yet pooled trials of EMTT on its own.
What is still missing
- Independent replication. The main trials share several authors, and the device manufacturer supplied equipment for at least two of them.
- Longer follow-up. Most results stop at 12 weeks; the longest controlled follow-up is 24 weeks.
- Tissue outcomes. No clinical trial has shown structural change in tendon, cartilage or bone.
- Comparisons with established care. EMTT has not been tested head to head against exercise therapy or shockwave alone.
- Condition-by-condition trials. Results for individual conditions come from small subgroups.
How we use this research
We treat EMTT as a reasonable option for selected people with long-standing joint and tendon problems, often alongside shockwave and an exercise plan, and not as a stand-alone cure. We examine first, explain why EMTT would or would not fit, and say what results are realistic. More about the treatment itself is on our EMTT page. If you have a problem that has outlasted normal recovery, book a new patient exam.
Sources
- Hollander K, Burgkart R, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Vester J, Gerdesmeyer L. Extracorporeal magnetotransduction therapy (EMTT) for management of musculoskeletal disorders: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 2026;39(3):885-895. PMID 41313312. (link)
- Klüter T, Krath A, Stukenberg M, et al. Electromagnetic transduction therapy and shockwave therapy in 86 patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2018;37(4):175-183. PMID 30183430. (link)
- Krath A, Klüter T, Stukenberg M, et al. Electromagnetic transduction therapy in non-specific low back pain: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2017;14(3):410-415. PMID 28736490. (link)
- Gerdesmeyer L, Knobloch K, Gollwitzer H, Ringeisen M. Prospective double blinded placebo controlled trial of high energetic magneto transduction therapy in shoulder joint enthesiopathies. Sports Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2023;39(2):212. (link)
- Charles R, Vlasak A, Turner T, et al. Extracorporeal magnetotransduction therapy as an adjunctive and primary modality for bone healing: a scoping review of current evidence. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2026;45(3):313-320. PMID 41885227. (link)
- Leyva Martínez I, Ramírez Arteaga A, Martínez-Rojano H, et al. Contemporary advances (2015–2026) in extracorporeal electromagnetic transduction therapy and pulsed electromagnetic fields for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of dosimetry and clinical response. Biomedicines. 2026;14(8):1731. PMID 42652114. (link)
