Evidence mapPaperPMID 41255349Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026

Effects from a single application of photobiomodulation on pain intensity from perineal trauma related to childbirth: A randomized controlled trial.

Edna Jéssica Lima Gondim, Simony Lira Nascimento, Maria Victória Candida Gaitero, Ticiana Aparecida Alves Mira, Andrea Vasconcelos Gonçalves, Fernanda Garanhani Surita

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Edna Jéssica Lima GondimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2047-9023
Simony Lira NascimentoPhysiotherapy Department, Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6248-5590
Maria Victória Candida GaiteroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9253-1973
Ticiana Aparecida Alves MiraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8543-4064
Andrea Vasconcelos GonçalvesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8728-1551
Fernanda Garanhani SuritaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4335-0337

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the effects of a single photobiomodulation (PBM) application on perineal pain and healing in women in the immediate postpartum period.

methodsRandomized controlled trial, double-blind, two-center, with 60 postpartum women with perineal trauma and pain scoring 4 or more on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The experimental group received red light to the lesion and infrared light around it, while the sham group received a simulation. We assessed pain with the NRS and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); tissue healing with the REEDA scale (Redness, Edema, Ecchymosis, Discharge, Approximation) at baseline, 30 min (primary outcome), and 12-36 h after intervention and satisfaction with a Likert scale 7-10 days post-intervention. We conducted bivariate analyses and an analysis of variance for repeated measures.

resultsThe experimental and sham groups showed pain reduction with no difference between them for pain scores or healing 30 min post-intervention (mean ± SD: NRS 3.63 ± 2.57 vs 2.53 ± 2.15; P = 0.089; SF-MPQ 7.83 ± 8.32 vs 5.10 ± 6.42; P = 0.108; and REEDA 5.57 ± 3.05 vs 4.47 ± 2.42; P = 0.175). Analysis of variance revealed no significant interaction between time and group at any time point evaluated. Of the participants, 84.09% were satisfied or very satisfied with the intervention.

conclusionsAlthough both groups experienced a reduction in pain after the intervention, a single PBM application with these parameters was not superior to a sham treatment. Future research could explore multiple applications or different parameters.

trial registrationLaser for Pain Relief in Nipple and Perineal Trauma in Postpartum; UTN code U1111-1279-3594 (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-2qm8jrp/1).

Indexed as

Low-Level Light TherapyPain ManagementPerineumAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansPain MeasurementPostpartum PeriodPregnancyTreatment OutcomeWound HealingYoung Adultepisiotomylow‐level light therapypainperineumpostpartum period

Identifiers

PMID41255349
PMCPMC13094685

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.