The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on stroke patients who had intact cognition and some voluntary finger extension and to identify optimal protocols to apply this therapy method. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials conducted prior to January 2022. The outcomes included the Motor Activity Log, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and Wolf Motor Function Test. The inverse variance method fixed-effect model as well as the DerSimonian and Laird estimator random-effects model were applied, and the mean difference was calculated with 95% confidence interval to measure continuous outcomes. Six randomized controlled trials involving a total of 169 patients with stroke were enrolled. Compared with conventional rehabilitation methods, there was no significant effect of constraint-induced movement therapy when evaluated by the Motor Activity Log, including the amount of use (random-effect, standardized mean difference 0.65; 95%, confidence interval: −0.23–1.52) and quality of movement (random-effect, standardized mean difference 0.60; 95% confidence interval: −0.19–1.39). However, among patients with chronic stroke symptoms, meta-regression analyses showed better performance with a constraint time of at least 6 h per day and 6 h training per week when assessing the amount of use (p = 0.0035) and quality of movement (p = 0.0031). Daily intervention time did not lead to a significant difference in functional upper limb performance. An efficient protocol of constraint-induced movement therapy designed as 6 h of training per week with 6 h constraint per day could bring significant stroke symptom improvement to patients with chronic stroke.

Background and Objectives: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a major cause of global disability. The efficacy of a non-invasive treatment, pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy, remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate PEMF’s effectiveness on KOA, exploring the influence of device parameters. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2015 to 2025. Nine RCTs with a total of 457 patients were included. Primary outcomes were pain (Visual Analog Scale—VAS) and function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index—WOMAC). Data were pooled using a random-effects model with subgroup analyses based on PEMF amplitude and frequency. Results: No significant improvement in VAS pain or total WOMAC scores was found at one month. However, time-dependent effects were observed. WOMAC-pain improved significantly at 18–21 days (MD = −1.63, 95% CI: −2.43 to −0.82, I² = 28%) but not at one month. Conversely, WOMAC-stiffness (MD = −1.11, 95% CI: −1.386 to −0.85, I² = 0%) and daily activity (MD = −3.39, 95% CI: −4.81 to −1.97, I² = 0%) improved significantly only at the one-month. Objective functional measures did not improve, and the overall risk of bias across studies was high. The efficacy of PEMF is also influenced by the amplitude and frequency. Conclusions: PEMF efficacy for KOA is nuanced, with benefits dependent on timing and device parameters. High frequency gives fast pain relief; high amplitude builds function. Though statistically significant, these improvements may not reach thresholds for clinical meaningfulness. Significant heterogeneity in treatment protocols is a major barrier to clear conclusions. Standardized, large-scale RCTs are needed to determine optimal parameters and confirm PEMF’s clinical role.