The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Huang Z, Ma J, Chen J, Shen B, Pei F, Kraus VB
Arthritis research & therapy · 90 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- China Scholarship Council
- Government
- National Institutes of Health
- Government
- National Institute on Aging
- Government
- NIA NIH HHS
- Grants
- National Institute on Aging (P30/AG028716); National Institutes of Health (028716); National Institutes of Health (P30-AG-028716)
Based on 4 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2015-12-01 · Arthritis Res Ther · vol. 17 · issue 1 · p. 360
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Cited
- 136 citations · more than 88% of similar papers · 2.2× the field average
- References
- 47 works
- Access
- Open access (journal)
- Research areas
- Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation · Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- Medicine, Blinding, Low level laser therapy, Cochrane Library, Meta-analysis, Placebo, Randomized controlled trial, MEDLINE, Physical therapy, Visual analogue scale, Laser therapy, Internal medicine, Alternative medicine
- MeSH
- humans, low back pain, chronic pain, low-level light therapy
6 authors
From US, CN
- Zeyu HuangDuke University; Sichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University; West China Hospital of Sichuan University; Duke Medical Center
- Jun MaSichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University; West China Hospital of Sichuan University
- Jing ChenSichuan University
- Bin ShenSichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University; West China Hospital of Sichuan University
- Fuxing Pei · correspondingSichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University; West China Hospital of Sichuan University
- Virginia B. KrausDuke University
Abstract
Background
In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies.
Method
MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)).
Results
Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.