↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0882-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

ZeYu Huang, Jun Ma, Jing Chen, Bin Shen, FuXing Pei, Virginia Byers Kraus

Abstract

In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes. Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 247 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 13%
Other 31 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 73 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 15%
Sports and Recreations 13 5%
Neuroscience 10 4%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 80 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,322,539
of 25,440,205 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#137
of 3,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,037
of 396,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#3
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,440,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.