A 12-Week Hospital Study of PEMF Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis Using the Sentient Element

A plain-language summary of a peer-reviewed clinical study.

This page summarizes a peer-reviewed clinical study conducted at the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (AIMSR), Jubilee, Hyderabad, India, and published in the Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research (2025). It reports what the study examined, how it was conducted, and what it measured, drawn directly from the published article. The original publication is linked below for independent verification.

Executive Summary

What this study was. An observational, open-label pilot study conducted at Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, examining pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy for early-stage knee osteoarthritis. Ten participants with osteoarthritis affecting both knees were treated and tracked over 12 weeks.

How it was measured. The study used standard, validated assessment tools: the WOMAC index for physical function, a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, knee range of motion and full flexion for mobility, and blood markers (CRP and ESR) for inflammation. MRI imaging was recorded for reference.

What it found. Across the 12 weeks, recorded pain and stiffness scores decreased, knee range of motion and flexion increased, and inflammatory markers (CRP and ESR) declined in this group of ten participants. Because the study was a small, single-group pilot conducted alongside nutritional supplements, these results are preliminary and describe what was observed in this group — not a demonstrated, generalizable effect of PEMF.

Group means (n=10). Where two figures are shown, they are right knee / left knee. VAS and WOMAC: lower is better. Flexion: higher is better. CRP and ESR: lower is favorable. These are single-group changes over time, not a controlled comparison, and cannot isolate the effect of PEMF.

What This Study Is, and What It Isn't

Understanding the type of study matters as much as its results, so it is worth stating plainly.

This was an observational, open-label pilot study. All ten participants received PEMF therapy — there was no placebo group and no separate untreated control group. "Open-label" means both the participants and the researchers knew the therapy was being given. Outcomes were measured in the same individuals before treatment and again during and after the 12-week period, so the study describes how this one group changed over time rather than comparing PEMF against a sham or untreated group.

This design is appropriate for an early, exploratory study. It can show whether a treatment is feasible, well tolerated, and worth investigating further, and it can indicate the direction of change in the people studied. What it cannot do is establish cause and effect. Without a control group, improvements over time cannot be confidently attributed to PEMF alone, because other factors — the natural fluctuation of symptoms, the structure and attention of a supervised program, and the nutritional supplements participants took throughout the study — may also have contributed. For that reason, the findings on this page are presented as observations within a single group, not as proof that PEMF produces these effects.

A note on terminology: the published paper describes the study in one place as "placebo-controlled." No placebo or sham-treatment group is described in its methods or results, and all participants received active therapy. We therefore describe it here, more precisely, as an open-label, single-group pilot study.

Background: Knee Osteoarthritis and Why PEMF Is Studied

Knee osteoarthritis is a common degenerative joint condition in which the cartilage that cushions the knee gradually breaks down. As cartilage is lost, people experience pain, stiffness, reduced range of motion, and difficulty with everyday activities such as walking and climbing stairs. It is one of the leading causes of mobility-related disability worldwide, and its burden tends to increase with age.

Current treatment focuses on managing symptoms rather than reversing the underlying cartilage loss. Common approaches include exercise, weight management, pain-relieving and anti-inflammatory medication, and, in advanced cases, joint injections or surgery. Because long-term medication use can carry side effects — particularly in older adults — there is ongoing interest in non-drug options that may help manage symptoms with a low risk profile.

Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is one such option under investigation. It delivers low-frequency electromagnetic pulses to tissue and has been used in orthopedics for decades, most established in the context of bone healing. Laboratory research suggests PEMF may influence processes relevant to joint health, such as cartilage cell activity and inflammation, which is part of why it has been studied as a potential adjunct in osteoarthritis care.

It is important to be clear about the state of the evidence: research on PEMF for knee osteoarthritis is mixed. Some controlled trials have reported reductions in pain and improvements in function, while others have found no significant benefit, and protocols vary widely between studies. The pilot study summarized on this page adds one small, early data point to that larger, still-developing picture.

Methods

Participants.Ten adults with early-stage osteoarthritis affecting both knees took part. Eligible participants were males and females with symptoms such as knee pain, stiffness, and reduced mobility, with osteoarthritis confirmed by radiographic assessment. The study excluded people who had undergone dental implant surgery and pregnant women. The protocol received ethics committee approval from the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (AIMSR), Hyderabad (approval number AIMSR/IRB/RC/2023/06/016), and all participants gave informed consent.

Intervention.Participants received PEMF therapy using the Sentient Element Classic device, which can be used with a single- or dual-coil configuration. The therapy was delivered at a frequency of 72–78 Hz and a current of 22.5 amps, in sessions of approximately one hour, with both knees treated. Alongside the PEMF sessions, participants also took three nutritional supplements during the study: a bone broth protein powder, a glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM with boswellia joint-support supplement, and a plant-based bone-strength supplement. Because these were taken concurrently, the study's results reflect PEMF plus supplements together, not PEMF in isolation — a point discussed in the limitations section below.

Treatment period.The published paper describes the treatment regimen somewhat inconsistently, referencing both a shorter session schedule and a period of "not more than 12 weeks." The outcome data are reported across a 12-week window, with the main assessment timepoints at Week 0 (baseline), Week 1, Week 6, and Week 12. Blood markers were recorded at two points: a baseline draw and a follow-up at approximately 12 weeks.

Outcome measures.The study used the following measures:

• Pain— the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), scored 0–10.
• Physical function— the WOMAC index (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index).
• Mobility— knee range of motion (ROM) and full flexion, measured in degrees.
• Inflammation— blood levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).
• Imaging— MRI, recorded for reference.

Statistical analysis.Data were analyzed in SPSS (version 11.0) and expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The researchers reported one-sample t-tests. It is worth noting, for readers evaluating the statistics, that these t-tests were run against a test value of 0 rather than as a direct before-versus-after comparison — so they indicate that the recorded scores differed from zero, which is a weaker form of statistical testing than a paired comparison of pre- versus post-treatment values.

Results

Across the 12-week period, the recorded measures moved in a consistent direction in this group of ten participants: pain decreased, physical function and mobility improved, and inflammatory markers fell. The charts below show the group averages (means) for all ten participants at each timepoint. Because this was a single-group study with no control arm, these charts show change over time within the treated group — not a comparison against an untreated or placebo group.

Charts show group means (n=10). Single-group data showing change over time, not a controlled comparison.

Pain (VAS, 0–10). Average pain scores declined steadily over the 12 weeks. For example, one participant's right-knee score moved from 9.5 at baseline to 5.5 at week 12; across the group, the downward trend was consistent.

Physical function (WOMAC, 0–68). WOMAC scores, where lower indicates better function, decreased across all ten participants from baseline to week 12.

Mobility (knee flexion). Average knee flexion increased over the study period — right-knee flexion rose from roughly 110–118° at baseline to higher values by week 12, with a similar pattern in the left knee.

Inflammation (CRP and ESR). Both inflammatory markers decreased between the baseline and follow-up blood draws — average ESR fell from about 11.2 to 8.4 mm/h and average CRP from about 4.5 to 2.3 mg/L.

A Note on Imaging

The study also recorded MRI scans. The three images below are reproduced from the study's supplementary material and show baseline and 12-week scans for a single participant (Patient 3).

Supplementary Fig. 1 — Patient 3, baseline vs 12 weeks

Supplementary Fig. 2 — Patient 3, baseline vs 12 weeks

Supplementary Fig. 3 — Patient 3, baseline vs 12 weeks

Supplementary Fig. 1 — Patient 3, baseline vs 12 weeks

Supplementary Fig. 2 — Patient 3, baseline vs 12 weeks

Supplementary Fig. 3 — Patient 3, baseline vs 12 weeks

The published study did not perform quantitative cartilage measurement on these images, and findings from one participant cannot be generalized. They are included here for transparency and are best understood as illustrative and hypothesis-generating — pointing to the value of a properly designed imaging study — rather than as evidence of cartilage repair or regeneration.

↑ Back to contents

What the Findings Mean, and What They Don't

The study's authors present these results as preliminary. The interpretation below reflects how the findings are best understood in context.

Safety and Tolerability

Within this small study, no adverse events were reported, and all ten participants completed the full course of therapy. The sessions were described as comfortable, and participants were able to undergo treatment without complications.

More broadly, PEMF is a non-thermal, non-ionizing therapy — it does not heat tissue or expose the body to ionizing radiation — and low-frequency PEMF has a long history of use in orthopedics. These general characteristics are part of why it is considered a low-risk approach when standard precautions are followed.

Two points of caution are worth stating. First, the absence of adverse events in ten participants is reassuring but cannot, on its own, establish a comprehensive safety profile; that requires larger studies. Second, PEMF is not appropriate for everyone: in line with standard guidance and this study's own criteria, it should be avoided by people who are pregnant, and anyone with an implanted electronic device such as a pacemaker, or other relevant medical conditions, should consult their doctor before considering PEMF therapy.

The Device Used in the Study

The device used in this study was the Sentient Element Classic, a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) system manufactured by Sentient Light. In the study, it was operated at a frequency of 72–78 Hz and could be used with either a single- or dual-coil configuration to treat both knees.

The Sentient Element was developed by Larry Langdon, the founder of Sentient Light and a former medical-device engineer whose earlier work was in FDA-cleared cardiac devices. You can read more about his background on the Meet Larry Langdon page.

The study was conducted independently at the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. For readers who want to know more about the device itself, full specifications are available on the Sentient Element product pages.

Citation, DOI & Downloads

Full citation.Reddy A, Meena S, Reddy KS, Gupta VK, Ambatipudi V, Fatima S, Thazeen S, Dawer SI, Rao PS. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy Using Sentient Element for Management and Chondroprotective Effects on Human Articular Cartilage in Early-Stage Osteoarthritis: An Observational and Open-Label Pilot Study. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2025;18(3):115–123.

DOI:10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i3.53722

Read the full study:ResearchGate (publication 389771862)  ·  Journal (via DOI)

Ethics approval.Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (AIMSR), Hyderabad — protocol number AIMSR/IRB/RC/2023/06/016.

How to cite this page.When referencing this summary, please cite the original study (above) as the primary source. This page may be referenced as: "Sentient Light. A 12-Week Hospital Study of PEMF Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis Using the Sentient Element. sentientlight.com/pemf-knee-osteoarthritis-study."

Media and research resources.Journalists, researchers, and practitioners are welcome to reference this study. A downloadable media kit — including the full citation, key figures, and a plain-language fact sheet — is available on request. Contact us for access.

Authorship & Review

The study. The clinical study summarized on this page was designed and conducted by the research team at the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (AIMSR), Hyderabad, and collaborating institutions. The authors are Abhidhya Reddy, Sheetal Meena, Karkala Srikanth Reddy, Vaibhav Kumar Gupta, Vaishnavi Ambatipudi, Shaheen Fatima, Shazia Thazeen, Syed Irfan Dawer, and Penakalapati Sailaja Rao (corresponding author). The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional ethics committee (protocol AIMSR/IRB/RC/2023/06/016), and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This page. This summary was prepared by Sentient Light, the manufacturer of the Sentient Element device used in the study, to make the published research available in an accessible, web-readable form. It reports the study as published and links to the original article for independent verification. It is intended as a faithful summary, not a substitute for the peer-reviewed paper.

Disclosure. The study was conducted independently at Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. Sentient Light manufactures the device studied; one of the study's listed contributors is affiliated with Sentient Light's medical-devices function, as noted in the published paper. Readers are encouraged to consult the original publication and form their own assessment.

Study conducted independently at the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. The Sentient Element device used in the study is manufactured by Sentient Light. This summary reflects the published study and is provided for information only; it is not medical advice. Readers are encouraged to consult the original article and a qualified healthcare professional.