ArticleJournal of chiropractic medicine2015
Light-Emitting Diode Versus Sham in the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Trial.
Article in Journal of chiropractic medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this preliminary study was to compare the application of the light emitting diode (LED) to sham LED in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.
methodsEighteen subjects met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned into 2 groups: light emitting diode or sham LED. The subjects received either the LED at 12 J/cm(2) or sham LED along 2 points of the plantar fascia. Subjects in both groups received a 10 minute transverse friction massage and participated in 4 plantar fascia stretching exercises. All subjects received a total of 6 treatments over 3 weeks. Progress was assessed using the lower extremity functional and analog pain scale.
resultsNo significant difference was found between treatment groups (P = .845). There was a significant difference in pain and outcome scores over time within both groups (P < .35).
conclusionAmong patients with plantar fasciitis, the use of LED did not result in greater improvement in function or pain compared with sham treatment. The findings suggest that manual intervention and passive stretching activities may have provided significant pain relief and improvement in functional outcome scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.