Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30653125›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Clinical efficacy of low-level laser therapy in plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wei Wang, Weifeng Jiang, Chuanxi Tang, Xiao Zhang, Jie Xiang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wei WangDepartment of Rehabilitation.
Weifeng JiangDepartment of Neurology, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Chuanxi TangDepartment of Neurobiology, Xuzhou Key Laboratory of Neurobiology, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Xiao ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation.
Jie XiangDepartment of Rehabilitation.
Xuzhou Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmerging evidence suggests that low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for plantar fasciitis (PF) may be beneficial. However, the convincing study investigating its effectiveness for treatment of PF was scarce. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether LLLT significantly relieve pain of patients with PF.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, China Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Wan fang, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched systematically up to March 2018.

resultsA total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included. The meta-analysis indicated that compared with control group, visual analogue scale (VAS) score significantly decreased at the end point of the treatment in LLLT group. In addition, this improvement is continued for up to 3 months. However, no significant difference was observed according to the Foot Function Index-pain subscale (FFI-p).

conclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that the LLLT in patients with PF significantly relieves the heel pain and the excellent efficacy lasts for 3 months after treatment.

Indexed as

AdultFasciitis, PlantarFemaleHeelHumansLow-Level Light TherapyMaleTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30653125
PMCPMC6370152
OpenAlexW2909648734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.