Trial reportLasers in medical science2013
Low-level laser therapy in meniscal pathology: a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the rehabilitation of knee meniscus injuries: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- LASER versus electromagnetic field in treatment of hemarthrosis in children with hemophilia.Lasers in medical science · 2015Trial
- 830 nm light-emitting diode (led) phototherapy significantly reduced return-to-play in injured university athletes: a pilot study.Laser therapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study (ISRCTN24203769) to assess the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in patients with meniscal pathology, including only symptomatic patients with tiny focus of grade 3 attenuation (seen only on 0.7 thickness sequences) or intrasubstance tears with spot of grade 3 signal intensity approaching the articular surface. None of the patients in the study group underwent arthroscopy or new magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Paired-samples t test was used to detect significant changes in subjective knee pain over the experimental period within groups, and ANOVA was used to detect any significant differences between the two groups. Pain was significantly improved for the LLLT group than for the placebo group (F = 154, p < 0.0001). Pain scores were significantly better after LLLT. Four (12.5 %) patients did not respond to LLLT. At baseline, the average Lysholm score was 77 ± 4.6 for the LLLT group and 77.2 ± 2.6 for the placebo group (p > 0.05). Four weeks after LLLT or placebo therapy, the laser group reported an average Lysholm score of 82.5 ± 4.6, and the placebo group scored 79.0 ± 1.9. At 6 months, the laser group had an average Lysholm score of 82.2 ± 5.7, and after 1 year, they scored 81.6 ± 6.6 (F = 14.82923, p = 0.002). Treatment with LLLT was associated with a significant decrease of symptoms compared to the placebo group: it should be considered in patients with meniscal tears who do not wish to undergo surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23093133What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.