## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Measure**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Group**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **MT1** & **MT2** & **Control** \\ \hline AST (U/L) & T0 & 27.40 \(\pm\) 12.96 & 21.73 \(\pm\) 6.46 & 41.38 \(\pm\) 26.62 \\  & T1 & 27.09 \(\pm\) 8.31 & 25.88 \(\pm\) 8.63 & 42.21 \(\pm\) 41.70 \\  & T2 & 27.61 \(\pm\) 7.19 & 24.26 \(\pm\) 10.08 & 32.04 \(\pm\) 6.24 \\ \hline NA (mmol/L) & T0 & 140.85 \(\pm\) 2.28 & 140.07 \(\pm\) 2.74 & 138.21 \(\pm\) 2.78 \\  & T1 & 139.95 \(\pm\) 3.25 & 140.60 \(\pm\) 3.74 & 139.79 \(\pm\) 3.07 \\  & T2 & 139.80 \(\pm\) 2.04 & 140.20 \(\pm\) 2.27 & 139.50 \(\pm\) 3.11 \\ \hline K (mmol/L) & T0 & 3.95 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 3.94 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 4.24 \(\pm\) 0.33 \\  & T1 & 4.11 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 4.16 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 4.44 \(\pm\) 0.60 \\  & T2 & 4.11 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 4.13 \(\pm\) 0.38 & 4.20 \(\pm\) 0.37 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* MT1—group receiving magnetotherapy applied to the head; MT2—group receiving magnetotherapy applied to the pelvic area. WBC—White Blood Cells, RBC—Red Blood Cells, HGB—Hemoglobin, HCT—Hematorcit, MC—Mean Corpuscular Volume, MCH—Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin, MCH—Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration, RDU—Red Cell Distribution Width, PLT—Platelets, MPV—Mean Platelet Volume, CREA—Creatinine, UREA—Urne, ALT—Alanine Aminotransferase, AST—Aspodium, and K—Potassium.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._are particularly noteworthy. They suggest that magnetotherapy targeting the head is safe, opening the door to future research on its potential impact on post-stroke patients. Hypothetically, magnetotherapy applied to the head may be more effective than pelvic applications in stroke patients due to the closer proximity to the affected brain regions, potentially resulting in a stronger therapeutic effect. However, this hypothesis requires validation through further studies involving appropriately larger participant groups. This study, despite its significant importance as the first of its kind, has certain limitations. The primary limitation is the exclusion of patients with severe functional impairment. This exclusion criterion was chosen because, in the planned full-scale study, we aim to obtain a relatively homogeneous group capable of performing functional assessment tests, which would not be possible if patients with severe disability, as measured by the FIM, were included. Another limitation is that the study was not designed to assess the effectiveness of the therapy, but rather to evaluate the feasibility of the study and the safety of the procedure. As a result, the data collected do not allow for conclusions that could be generalized about the therapy's efficacy. Such conclusions can only be drawn from a full-scale study specifically designed to evaluate the therapeutic effects, which would be conducted in the future. The role of pilot studies is not to provide information on the effectiveness of the intervention being tested. Instead, they provide essential data for conducting future full-scale studies, allowing for the refinement of research procedures, identification of potential challenges, and assessment of safety. Their primary goal is to prevent unexpected difficulties and deficiencies in research methods from arising in the full-scale study [18, 28]. Conducting pilot studies on appropriately smaller groups of participants does not allow for drawing reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of an intervention [18, 28]. While this design is justified from the perspective of the planned full-scale study, it limits the generalizability of the safety evaluation of the procedure to patients who have been most severely affected by strokes in terms of functional disability.