Effectiveness of low-level laser on carpal tunnel syndrome: A meta-analysis of previously reported randomized trials
Li ZJ, Wang Y, Zhang HF, Ma XL, Tian P, Huang Y
Medicine · 31 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
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Government
- Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City
- Grants
- Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City (14JCQNJC11700); National Natural Science Foundation of China (81501887)
Based on 2 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2016-08-01 · Medicine (Baltimore) · vol. 95 · issue 31 · p. e4424
- Publisher
- Wolters Kluwer
- Cited
- 44 citations · more than 93% of similar papers · 3.9× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 41 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Peripheral Nerve Disorders · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Oropharyngeal Anatomy and Pathologies
- Keywords
- Medicine, Carpal tunnel syndrome, Surgery, Orthodontics
- MeSH
- humans, carpal tunnel syndrome, pain measurement, hand strength, prognosis, treatment outcome, severity of illness index, risk assessment, female, male, randomized controlled trials as topic, low-level light therapy
6 authors
From CN, US
- Zhijun Li · correspondingTianjin Medical University General Hospital; Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital; Tianjin Children's Hospital
- Yao WangTianjin Nankai Hospital
- Huafeng ZhangTianjin Medical University General Hospital
- Xinlong MaTianjin People's Hospital; Tianjin Hospital
- Peng TianTianjin People's Hospital; Tianjin Hospital
- Yuting HuangChildren's National
Abstract
Background
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been applied in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) for an extended period of time without definitive consensus on its effectiveness. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of low-level laser in the treatment of mild to moderate CTS using a Cochrane systematic review.
Methods
We conducted electronic searches of PubMed (1966-2015.10), Medline (1966-2015.10), Embase (1980-2015.10), and ScienceDirect (1985-2015.10), using the terms "carpal tunnel syndrome" and "laser" according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Relevant journals or conference proceedings were searched manually to identify studies that might have been missed in the database search. Only randomized clinical trials were included, and the quality assessments were performed according to the Cochrane systematic review method. The data extraction and analyses from the included studies were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. The results were expressed as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the continuous outcomes.
Results
Seven randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria; there were 270 wrists in the laser group and 261 wrists in the control group. High heterogeneity existed when the analysis was conducted. Hand grip (at 12 weeks) was stronger in the LLLT group than in the control group (MD = 2.04; 95% CI: 0.08-3.99; P = 0.04; I = 62%), and there was better improvement in the visual analog scale (VAS) (at 12 weeks) in the LLLT group (MD = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.84-1.11; P 95% in the calculation of these 3 parameters. There were no statistically significant differences in the other parameters between the 2 groups.
Conclusion
This study revealed that low-level laser improve hand grip, VAS, and SNAP after 3 months of follow-up for mild to moderate CTS. More high-quality studies using the same laser intervention protocol are needed to confirm the effects of low-level laser in the treatment of CTS.
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.