Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38709332›Full record

SynthesisLasers in medical science2024

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy in the management of neck pain.

Hernán Andrés de la Barra Ortiz, Mariana Arias, Richard Eloin Liebano

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06465524 (Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Stretching Exercises on Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06465524 nacompletednot on this map

Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Stretching Exercises on Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: Findings From a Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorQuiropraxia y EquilibrioRan2024 to 2025Enrolled21ConditionsChronic Non-specific Neck PainArmsHigh-intensity laser therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hernán Andrés de la Barra OrtizExercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Avenida Fernández Concha 700, 7591538, Las Condes, Santiago de Chile, Chile. hdelabarra@unab.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3927-1743
Mariana AriasPhysiotherapeutic Resources Research Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5081-5326
Richard Eloin LiebanoPhysiotherapeutic Resources Research Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4795-6723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, disability, and range of movement in patients with neck pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HILT for neck pain disorders were searched across databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, the PEDro database, and Google Scholar (updated January 7, 2024). The main outcome was pain intensity, with neck disability and cervical range of motion as secondary outcomes. Researchers reviewed article titles and abstracts from different databases using the Rayyan web app. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and evidence-based recommendations were developed using the GRADE approach. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled effect in terms of mean differences (MD) for the outcomes of interest, along with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Twenty studies met the selection criteria and were potentially eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. At the end of the treatment, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.01) pooled MD of -14.1 mm for pain intensity (17 RCTs) with the VAS (95% CI:-18.4,-9.7), 3.9° (95% CI:1.9,6.7) for cervical extension (9 RCTs), and -8.3% (95% CI:-14.1,-4.1) for disability diminish (12 RCTs) with the neck disability index in favor of HILT. Only the results for pain intensity are in line with the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) reported in the literature. Overall, the evidence was deemed significant but with low certainty, attributed to observed heterogeneity and some risk of bias among the RCTs. HILT demonstrates effectiveness in reducing neck pain and disability while enhancing cervical extension when added to other physical therapy interventions, especially therapeutic exercise, based on a moderate level of evidence. This review highlights that the most favorable results are obtained when HILT is employed to address myofascial pain, cervical radiculopathy and chronic neck pain.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023387394 (Registration date, 14/01/2023).

Indexed as

Neck PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansLaser TherapyPain MeasurementRange of Motion, ArticularTreatment OutcomeHigh-Intensity Laser TherapyLaser therapyMusculoskeletal painNeck painSystematic review

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.