Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28319422›Full record

Trial reportJournal of athletic training2017

Phototherapy for Improvement of Performance and Exercise Recovery: Comparison of 3 Commercially Available Devices.

Thiago De Marchi, Vinicius Mazzochi Schmitt, Carla Danúbia da Silva Fabro, Larissa Lopes da Silva, Juliane Sene, Olga Tairova, Mirian Salvador

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of athletic training, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thiago De MarchiPostgraduate Program in Biotechnology, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Vinicius Mazzochi SchmittSports Medicine Institute, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Carla Danúbia da Silva FabroPostgraduate Program in Biotechnology, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Larissa Lopes da SilvaPostgraduate Program in Biotechnology, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Juliane SenePostgraduate Program in Biotechnology, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Olga TairovaSports Medicine Institute, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Mirian SalvadorPostgraduate Program in Biotechnology, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Universidade de Caxias do Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextRecent studies suggest the prophylactic use of low-powered laser/light has ergogenic effects on athletic performance and postactivity recovery. Manufacturers of high-powered lasers/light devices claim that these can produce the same clinical benefits with increased power and decreased irradiation time; however, research with high-powered lasers is lacking.

objectiveTo evaluate the magnitude of observed phototherapeutic effects with 3 commercially available devices.

designRandomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

settingLaboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER

participantsForty healthy untrained male participants. INTERVENTION(S): Participants were randomized into 4 groups: placebo, high-powered continuous laser/light, low-powered continuous laser/light, or low-powered pulsed laser/light (comprising both lasers and light-emitting diodes). A single dose of 180 J or placebo was applied to the quadriceps. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Maximum voluntary contraction, delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and creatine kinase (CK) activity from baseline to 96 hours after the eccentric exercise protocol.

resultsMaximum voluntary contraction was maintained in the low-powered pulsed laser/light group compared with placebo and high-powered continuous laser/light groups in all time points (P < .05). Low-powered pulsed laser/light demonstrated less DOMS than all groups at all time points (P < .05). High-powered continuous laser/light did not demonstrate any positive effects on maximum voluntary contraction, CK activity, or DOMS compared with any group at any time point. Creatine kinase activity was decreased in low-powered pulsed laser/light compared with placebo (P < .05) and high-powered continuous laser/light (P < .05) at all time points. High-powered continuous laser/light resulted in increased CK activity compared with placebo from 1 to 24 hours (P < .05).

conclusionsLow-powered pulsed laser/light demonstrated better results than either low-powered continuous laser/light or high-powered continuous laser/light in all outcome measures when compared with placebo. The increase in CK activity using the high-powered continuous laser/light compared with placebo warrants further research to investigate its effect on other factors related to muscle damage.

Indexed as

MyalgiaPhototherapyAdultAthletic PerformanceDouble-Blind MethodExerciseFemaleHumansLasersMaleMuscle, SkeletalQuadriceps MuscleRecovery of Functionhigh-intensity laser therapylight-emitting diode therapylow-level laser therapyphotobiomodulation therapyskeletal muscle performance

Identifiers

PMID28319422
PMCPMC5455246
OpenAlexW2599669067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.