Meta-analysis2026

Is There Any Difference Between High-Intensity Laser and Low-Level Laser in the Treatment of Tennis Elbow? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Zhang M, Zhao Z, Wu Z, Li F

American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 0 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2025-08-08 · Am J Phys Med Rehabil · vol. 105 · issue 2 · pp. 134–142
Publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Cited
1 citation · more than 41% of similar papers · 0.2× the field average
References
24 works
Access
Paywalled
Research areas
Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Shoulder Injury and Treatment · Tendon Structure and Treatment
Keywords
Medicine, Low level laser therapy, Grip strength, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trial, Placebo, Elbow, Physical therapy, Tennis elbow, Rehabilitation, Laser therapy, Bandage, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Laser, Surgery, Internal medicine, Alternative medicine
MeSH
humans, tennis elbow, hand strength, treatment outcome, randomized controlled trials as topic, laser therapy, low-level light therapy

4 authors

From CN, US

  • Minhui ZhangNanjing Normal University
  • Zhengyang ZhaoNational Natural Science Foundation of China; U.S. National Science Foundation; Nanjing Normal University
  • Zhijian WuNational Natural Science Foundation of China; U.S. National Science Foundation; Nanjing Normal University
  • Fanghui Li · correspondingNational Natural Science Foundation of China; U.S. National Science Foundation; Nanjing Normal University

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of laser therapy (high-intensity vs. low-level) in treating tennis elbow.

Design

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials up to February 2025. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality assessment. Data were analyzed via RevMan 5.4.

Result

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included. Laser therapy demonstrates significant improvements in pain, grip strength, and functional outcomes for tennis elbow patients. Subgroup analysis reveals that both high-intensity laser therapy ( P = 0.01) and low-level laser therapy ( P < 0.00001) effectively reduce pain versus baseline with comparable efficacy, although high-intensity laser therapy shows nonsignificant improvement versus placebo ( P = 0.07). Regarding functional improvement, high-intensity laser therapy is similar to low-level laser therapy (both significant, P < 0.05). For grip strength, both modalities show significant improvement ( P < 0.05), with high-intensity laser therapy exhibiting superior effects. Further analysis of combination therapies showed that laser combined with bandage demonstrates more significant pain relief and functional improvement.

Conclusions

High-intensity laser therapy and low-level laser therapy are both effective modalities for improving symptoms of tennis elbow (pain, function, and grip strength). Low-level laser therapy demonstrates more consistent significance in pain relief, while high-intensity laser therapy shows greater advantages in enhancing grip strength. More importantly, laser therapy combined with bandage produces synergistic effects, highlighting its value as a key complementary component within multimodal rehabilitation programs.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.