SynthesisLasers in medical science2024
Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on high-intensity laser therapy for musculoskeletal pain management: an umbrella review.
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. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy for patellofemoral pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of the effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy versus low-level laser therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in trigger finger: a randomized controlled trial.Rheumatology international · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal pain (MSP) remains one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Recent approaches to treating this condition have prompted the development of several systematic reviews investigating the efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT), whose analgesic mechanisms are based on photobiomodulation neural inhibition, endorphin and serotonin release and anti-inflammatory effects. To assess the methodological quality, reliability, and validity of the systematic reviews (SRs) on HILT in MSP. This study is an overview of SRs (umbrella review) with an observational, retrospective, and secondary design. The search considered PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases (updated October 23, 2024). The primary focus was on the methodological quality of the reviews and their reporting of pain intensity results. The HILT effects on pain intensity were reported using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD). The quality assessment was conducted using the A Measurement Instrument to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist (AMSTAR-2), and the findings were synthesized narratively. The MD and SMD obtained from all reviews were presented using forest plots. The Shapiro-Wilk normality test assessed MD and SMD distributions for pain intensity across meta-analyses. The average MD and SMD, along with their respective confidence intervals (CI), were estimated and presented based on the aggregate study outcomes. Twenty SRs were included, fourteen of which conducted meta-analyses covering diverse musculoskeletal disorders such as knee osteoarthritis, epicondylalgia, myofascial pain, frozen shoulder, plantar fasciitis, neck, and low back pain. The primary databases used were PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The AMSTAR-2 average score was 12.9 points (± 1.8), indicating varying methodological quality with one or two criteria resulting in low or critically low. HILT's best analgesic effects are observed in frozen shoulder disorder (MD = -2.23 cm; 95% CI:-3.3,-1.2; p < 0.01), knee osteoarthritis (MD = -1.9 cm; 95% CI:-2.0,-1.8;p < 0.01), low back pain (MD = -1.9 cm; 95% CI = -2.9,-1.0; p < 0.01), and myofascial pain (MD = -1.9 cm; 95% CI:-2.6,-1.2; p < 0.01). Largest effect sizes are for neck pain (SMD = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.2,3.0, p < 0.05) and low back pain (SMD = 1.1 (95% CI = 1.4,0.8; p < 0.01). This review underscores the generally low to critically low methodological quality of SRs on HILT, as assessed by AMSTAR-2. Key areas for improvement for future SRs of RCTs include addressing publication bias, disclosing funding sources, and enhancing search strategies and discussions on heterogeneity. The scarcity of RCTs for conditions such as temporomandibular disorders, carpal tunnel syndrome, and myofascial pain highlights the need for further research. SRs on spinal disorders, frozen shoulder, and neck pain demonstrated the most favorable analgesic effects, providing valuable insights for clinical practice and future RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39652213What Socratic holds
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.