Medical Policy

This document addresses the use of static (permanent, not electrically charged) magnetic fields as a method to relieve pain and treat other health issues. Biomagnetic therapy involves applying a magnet on or near the skin through various devices, including but not limited to bracelets, necklaces, insoles, sleeves, headbands, or mattress pads. It may also be referred to as magnetic therapy, magnetherapy, magnotherapy, or static magnetic field therapy.

Note: This document does not address transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). For criteria relating to TMS, please see the applicable guidelines used by the plan.

Note: For a high-level overview of this document, please see Summary for Members and Families below.

Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

Biomagnetic therapy is considered investigational and not medically necessary for all indications.

This document describes clinical studies and expert recommendations, and explains whether biomagnetic therapy is appropriate. The following summary does not replace the medical necessity criteria or other information in this document. The summary may not contain all the relevant criteria or information. This summary is not medical advice. Please check with your healthcare provider for any advice about your health.

Key Information

Biomagnetic therapy involves putting magnets on or near the skin to try to lessen pain or help with other health problems. This method uses static/permanent magnets, which do not use electricity, and may be placed in bracelets, necklaces, shoe inserts, sleeves, headbands, mattress pads, or other locations. Some people think biomagnetic therapy may help with joint pain or healing after an injury, but this has not been proven. It is usually thought to be safe, unless it keeps someone from getting other treatment they need. Many studies have looked at this therapy, but the results do not show that it helps. More research is needed to know whether biomagnetic therapy improves health.

What the Studies Show

Several studies have tested biomagnetic therapy and found that people using real magnets got the same results as people using fake magnets. For example, one study looked at people after surgery and found no difference in pain relief or in how much pain medicine they used between the magnet group and the fake-magnet group. Another study of people with carpal tunnel syndrome also found no difference between the groups. Other studies did show pain decreases in the magnet group, but the fake-magnet group improved in similar ways too. Reviews of many studies found that magnets did not work better than fake treatments and that the studies were not very strong.

Is this clinically appropriate?

This treatment is not appropriate because it has not been proven to improve health. Studies have not shown that biomagnetic therapy helps reduce pain or improve function any more than fake treatments. Better studies are needed to understand  whether the treatment could help in any situation.

(Return to Description/Scope)

Summary

Available peer-reviewed evidence has not established a clinically meaningful benefit of static magnetic field (SMF) therapy over sham or active controls for pain reduction or any other indication. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited by small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses. Systematic reviews and a meta-analysis consistently conclude that effect sizes are either non-significant or too small to be clinically meaningful. Professional guidelines from authoritative bodies do not endorse SMF therapy for any indication.

Discussion

Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews of Static Magnetic Field Therapy

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Cepeda, 2007) evaluated the use of magnetic therapy for postoperative pain. A total of 165 participants were randomized to either sham therapy or magnetic therapy upon reporting moderate to severe pain in a postanesthesia unit. Sham or commercially available magnets were placed over the surgical incision site for 2 hours. Study participants rated their pain on a scale of 0 to 10. Pain was rated similarly in both groups, and opioid requirements did not differ significantly between groups. The authors concluded that magnetic therapy lacks efficacy and should not be recommended for acute pain relief.

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled feasibility study (Colbert, 2010) collected data on the effectiveness of magnetic therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome. Participants (n=60) were recruited from the general population and nightly wore neodymium magnets at either 15 or 45 millitesla, or a nonmagnetic sham disc, forming 3 treatment arms. Primary outcome measures included a symptom severity scale and a functional status scale of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and 4 median nerve parameters. Study results indicated that participants in all groups experienced some improvement after 6 weeks of treatment, but no significant between-group differences in outcome measures were demonstrated.

A Cochrane review (Kroeling, 2013) evaluated the effectiveness of therapies, one of which was permanent magnets (necklaces), as a treatment for neck pain. The authors noted that the evidence was rated as low quality and that further study appeared to be needed. Conclusions included that for individuals with chronic neck pain, magnetic necklaces were no more effective in providing relief than placebo. This review has not been updated since 2013. Similarly, a Cochrane systematic review (Cheong, 2014) on nonsurgical interventional approaches to treat pelvic pain concluded that, “No difference in pain levels was observed when magnetic therapy was compared with use of a control magnet.” The quality of evidence for magnetic therapy as a treatment for pelvic pain was rated as very low quality. This review has not been updated since 2014.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) provides information on magnets for pain relief (2023). The fact sheet notes that although widely marketed, “research studies do not conclusively support the use of static magnets for pain relief.”

Kamm and colleagues (2019) performed a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled study investigating the influence of static magnetic field exposure on sensory and pain (pin-prick, pressure, and heat) perception with 18 healthy volunteers. Participants were aware that different field strengths would be used but were blinded to the actual field strength used on a specific day. The individuals underwent 3 10-minute static magnetic field exposures using field strengths of 0 tesla (T) (placebo), 1.5 T, and 3 T within clinical magnetic resonance scanners in randomized order on 3 separate days. Experimental sensory and pain testing was performed immediately before and after each magnetic field exposure. The results showed there was no significant effect of field strength on the assessed experimental sensory and pain testing parameters (mechanical detection threshold, pin-prick threshold, pressure pain threshold, heat pain threshold, and suprathreshold heat pain rating). The study found no evidence that a 10-minute 1.5 T or 3 T static magnetic field exposure affects experimental sensory or pain perception in young, healthy volunteers.

A systematic review and meta-analysis (Fan, 2021) collected data from 28 studies that investigated the effects of static magnetic fields on pain relief in human participants or mice. Data were extracted by 2 investigators, who calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using inverse variance methods and standard meta-analysis software. The results showed that 64% of the human studies (n=22) and 100% of the studies in mice (n=6) showed positive analgesic effects of static magnetic fields. While most of the reported studies indicated that static magnetic fields could have positive effects, there were also studies that did not observe positive analgesic effects from static magnetic fields. Meta-analysis was performed for the seven trials that assessed the analgesic effect of static magnetic fields using pain scores. The pooled effect estimate comparing static magnetic field treatment with placebo control was not statistically significant (SMD, −0.39; 95% CI, −0.78 to −0.00; I²=78%). Although the investigators indicated that the evidence on the analgesic effects of static magnetic fields is not definitive and that there is no direct evidence of efficacy for pain relief, some reviewed studies supported the use of static magnetic fields for pain relief. However, it was indicated that further investigation is warranted to determine whether static magnetic fields could be used as an alternative to, or addition to, a pain management program. The investigators further concluded that clinical trials in humans are insufficient, and the available studies have not yielded satisfactory results. The authors concluded that the reasons for the unsatisfactory results may include improper static magnetic field parameters and inadequate treatment time, or the types of pain reported (Fan, 2021).

A randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial (Wang, 2025) evaluated moderate static magnetic field therapy in 30 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, of whom 22 completed the 90-day study period (26.7% withdrawal rate). Participants wore a waist belt containing neodymium magnets or an identical nonmagnetic sham belt for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week. Primary outcomes included areal bone mineral density (aBMD) at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back pain. No statistically significant between-group differences in aBMD were observed at any site. VAS scores for low back pain decreased significantly more in the magnetic field group than in the sham control group (p=0.0114). However, the trial was designed as a preliminary investigation with a small sample size, post hoc power for the aBMD endpoints was low, participant characteristics were not comprehensively assessed, and the 90-day duration was short for evaluating effects on bone mineral density.

Studies Reporting Within-Group Improvements

The following studies reported statistically significant within-group improvements or other positive signals; however, each has methodological limitations that preclude drawing conclusions about clinical efficacy.

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled crossover trial (Gencler, 2025) tested static magnetic field therapy (a surface field strength of 300 Gauss) in 30 individuals with mechanical neck and low back pain. Pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from 6.9 to 3.3 (3.6-point reduction) compared to 7.5 to 6.3 (1.2 points) with sham (p<0.001). Disability scores for 17 individuals with low back pain (100-point scale) fell from 42.1 to 29.2 (12.9 points) compared to 48.0 to 39.2 (8.8 points) with sham (p=0.009), and for 13 individuals with neck pain (50-point scale) from 30.1 to 10.4 (19.7 points) compared to 30.5 to 26.6 (3.9 points) with sham (p<0.001). Similarly, Zwolińska and colleagues (2024) tested static magnetic fields (7 millitesla) in a randomized trial with 39 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, of whom 32 completed 10 sessions over 3 weeks. Within-group improvements were observed in the intervention arm (p<0.05); however, between-group differences between the magnetic therapy group and the control group did not reach statistical significance. The study did not include a sham control arm, limiting interpretation of the results.

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial (Ain, 2025) evaluated a wearable multipolar magnetic field device (Powerinsole^®, Powerinsole VertriebsgmbH, Obertrum, Austria) in 117 retail workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain. At Day 20, mean pain scores on the numeric rating scale (NRS) decreased significantly more in the active device group than in the placebo group (difference: −2.21; 95% CI, −2.79 to −1.63; p<0.001). The proportion of participants achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain was significantly higher in the active group than in the placebo group (61.5% vs. 1.9%; p<0.001). The study population was limited to retail workers, which limits generalizability.

Biomagnetic therapy is a proposed approach to analgesia that utilizes the non-invasive application of static magnets to create a static magnetic field in areas of musculoskeletal damage or perceived discomfort. The use of magnets as therapeutic agents has existed since antiquity and remains a medical fixture in many cultures.

Clinically, biomagnetic therapy is reported to lessen the discomfort arising from osteoarthritis and other degenerative joint conditions, as well as joint or tendon injuries. However, these claims have not been substantiated by laboratory or in situ examinations of the affected anatomy following therapy. Though the precise physiological mechanism remains elusive, proponents of biomagnetic therapy attribute its recuperative effects to an unspecified up-regulation of cellular functions. Further ambiguity stems from the fact that the reported efficacy of this treatment is based largely on subjective experiences from clinical trials that may be affected by a significant placebo effect and investigator bias.

The effectiveness of biomagnetic therapy for relieving pain is still in question. The treatment is generally considered harmless unless it causes an individual to forgo other needed medical treatments.

Analgesia: Absence of the normal sense of pain.

Biomagnetic therapy (may also be known as magnetic therapy, magnetherapy, magnotherapy, static magnetic field therapy, or therapeutic magnets): The application of magnets for the treatment of a health condition.

Magnet: A material or object that produces a magnetic field and attracts ferromagnetic materials, such as iron.

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this document are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.

When services are Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:
When the code describes a procedure indicated in the Position Statement section as investigational and not medically necessary.

Peer Reviewed Publications:

1. Ain QU, Pongratz P, Dartsch PC. Health effects of a wearable multipolar magnetic field device: results of a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial with retail workers suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Clin Med Current Res. 2025; 5(2):1-10.
2. Cepeda MS, Carr DB, Sarquis T, et al. Static magnetic therapy does not decrease pain or opioid requirements: a randomized double-blind trial. Anesth Analg. 2007; 104(2):290-294.
3. Colbert AP, Markov MS, Carlson N, et al. Static magnetic field therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: a feasibility study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91(7):1098-1104.
4. Fan Y, Ji X, Zhang L, et al. The analgesic effects of static magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2021; 42(2):115-127.
5. Gencler OS, Cemil DB. Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy on pain intensity, functional disability, sleep quality, and depressive symptoms in patients with mechanical neck and low back pain. Complement Med Res. 2025; 32(1):45-54.
6. Kamm K, Pomschar A, Ruscheweyh R, et al. Static magnetic field exposure in 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance scanners does not influence pain and touch perception in healthy volunteers. Eur J Pain. 2019; 23:250-259.
7. Macfarlane GJ, Paudyal P, Doherty M, et al. Arthritis Research UK working group on Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Management of Rheumatic Diseases. A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012; 51(12):2224-2233.
8. Pittler MH, Brown EM, Ernst E. Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ. 2007; 177(7):736-742.
9. Richmond SJ, Brown SR, Campion PD, et al. Therapeutic effects of magnetic and copper bracelets in osteoarthritis: a randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. Complement Ther Med. 2009; 17(5-6):249-256.
10. Richmond SJ, Gunadasa S, Bland M, Macpherson H. Copper bracelets and magnetic wrist straps for rheumatoid arthritis - analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial. PLoS One. 2013; 8(9):e71529.
11. Wang S, Yang J, Wei Y, et al. Moderate static magnetic fields prevent estrogen deficiency-induced bone loss: evidence from ovariectomized mouse model and small sample size randomized controlled clinical trial. PLoS One. 2025; 20(4):e0314199.
12. Winemiller MH, Billow RG, Laskowski ER, et al. Effect of magnetic vs. sham-magnetic insoles on plantar heel pain. JAMA. 2003; 290(11):1474-1478.
13. Zwolińska J, Kasprzak M, Kielar A, Prokop M. Positive and negative effects of administering a magnetic field to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). J Clin Med. 2024; 13(6):1619.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

1. Cheong YC, Smotra G, Williams AC. Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (3):CD008797.
2. Kroeling P, Gross A, Graham N, et al. Electrotherapy for neck pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (8):CD004251.
3. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Magnets for pain: what you need to know. Last updated January 2023. Available at: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/magnets-for-pain-what-you-need-to-know. Accessed on March 12, 2026.

Biomagnetic Therapy
Magnetic Therapy
Magnetherapy
Magnotherapy
Static Magnetic Field Therapy
Therapeutic Magnets

The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available.

Federal and State law, as well as contract language, including definitions and specific contract provisions/exclusions, take precedence over Medical Policy and must be considered first in determining eligibility for coverage. The member’s contract benefits in effect on the date that services are rendered must be used. Medical Policy, which addresses medical efficacy, should be considered before utilizing medical opinion in adjudication. Medical technology is constantly evolving, and we reserve the right to review and update Medical Policy periodically.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.

© CPT Only – American Medical Association