SynthesisCell biochemistry and function2026
Qualitative Comparison of LED and LASER Effects on Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies.
Synthesis in Cell biochemistry and function, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical dosimetry and efficacy of LED photobiomodulation for chronic lower-limb wound healing: a systematic review of randomized trials.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Qualitative Comparison of LED and LASER Effects on Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies.Cell biochemistry and function · 2026Pooled it
- Laser-assisted pontic site soft tissue healing prior to fixed partial dentures: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Light therapy in medicine: where do we stand?Annals of translational medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review presents qualitative comparisons between LED and LASER photobiomodulation in cutaneous wound healing, limited by the substantial heterogeneity of experimental parameters. Chronic wounds represent a major clinical challenge due to prolonged healing times, high risk of infection, and increased healthcare costs. Photobiomodulation (PBM) using low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and light-emitting diode (LED) devices has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy for tissue repair. However, the equivalence of the biological and therapeutic effects of these light sources remains debated. The aim of this review is to clarify these effects by systematically comparing LLLT and LED sources on cutaneous wound healing. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase using terms related to wound healing, LLLT, and LED. We included exclusively controlled in vivo or in vitro studies that directly compared the effects of LLLT and LED on cutaneous wound healing or related biological processes. Of 2020 identified studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Both LED and laser promote relevant cellular effects, contributing to the tissue repair process. Findings indicate that both devices promote similar photobiomodulatory effects by activating key cellular and molecular mechanisms essential for wound repair. This review presents predominantly qualitative comparisons between LED and LASER in wound healing, limited by the substantial heterogeneity of experimental parameters. Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that, although LLLT shows quantitatively superior effects on parameters such as blood vessel density and caliber and type I collagen deposition, both modalities demonstrate similar preclinical effects. (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD420251086145).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.