Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33496904›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2021

Comparison of photobiomodulation in the treatment of skin injury with an open wound in mice.

Ketlyn Germann Hendler, Jaquelini Betta Canever, Luana Gabriel de Souza, Laís Mara Siqueira das Neves, Marisa de Cássia Registro Fonseca, Heloyse Uliam Kuriki, Aderbal da Silva Aguiar Junior, Rafael Inácio Barbosa, Alexandre Marcio Marcolino

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Investigating the wound healing potential of low-power 661 nm laser light in a pigmented hairless murine model.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

9 authors.

Ketlyn Germann HendlerLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Jaquelini Betta CaneverLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Luana Gabriel de SouzaLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Laís Mara Siqueira das NevesLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Marisa de Cássia Registro FonsecaPostgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Ribeirão Preto Medical School of the University of São Paulo (USP), Av. dos Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, 14049-900, Brazil.
Heloyse Uliam KurikiLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Aderbal da Silva Aguiar JuniorLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Rafael Inácio BarbosaLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil.
Alexandre Marcio MarcolinoLaboratory of Assessment and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor Apparatus, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Araranguá - Campus Mato Alto, Rua Pedro João Pereira, 150, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, 88905-120, Brazil. alexandre.marcolino@ufsc.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2347-3797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effects of photobiomodulation at a wavelength of 660 and 830 nm at different numbers of application points in the healing of open wounds in mice. In total, 120 mice were divided into 10 groups. The animals were submitted to cutaneous lesion of the open wound type (1.5 × 1.5 cm). Photobiomodulation at a wavelength of 660 and 830 nm and total energy of 3.6 J were used, applied at 1, 4, 5, and 9 points, for 14 days. The animals were subjected to analysis of the lesion area, skin temperature, and histological analysis. Macroscopic analysis results showed a difference (p < 0.05) between the irradiated groups and the sham group at 14 days PO. There was no statistical difference in skin temperature. Histological analysis findings showed better results for the epidermis thickness. Regarding the number of blood vessels, a difference was found between the 1- and 5-point 830-nm photobiomodulation groups and between the 4-point 660-nm group and the naive group. A significant difference in the number of fibroblasts was observed between the 830- and 660-nm photobiomodulation groups and the naive and sham groups. When comparing photobiomodulation wavelength, the 830-nm groups were more effective, and we emphasize the groups irradiated at 5 points, which showed an improvement in macroscopic analysis and epidermis thickness, an increase in the number of vessels, and a lower number of fibroblasts on the 14th day after skin injury.

Indexed as

Low-Level Light TherapySkin DiseasesAnimalsFibroblastsMiceRatsRats, WistarSkinWound HealingHealingHistologyInjuriesLow-intensity laser therapyMice

Identifiers

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.