ArticlePloS one2022
Laser light sources for photobiomodulation: The role of power and beam characterization in treatment accuracy and reliability.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monte Carlo simulations of optical propagation in human skin using experimentally measured laser parameters.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Is photobiomodulation therapy free from racial bias?: a narrative review of skin pigmentation.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2026Review
- Photobiomodulation on vocal training and rehabilitation: Delphi consensus based on experts.CoDAS · 2025Article
- Impact of Photobiomodulation Therapy Dosing Strategies on Strength, Clinical Outcomes, and Metabolic Responses: A Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Penetration Depth of 905 nm and 1064 nm Laser Light in Surface Layers of Biological Tissue Ex Vivo.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDaily clinical use of therapeutic light sources can lead to changes in light emission stability with potentially significant consequences for usage in photomedicine treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the average and maximum power and to describe the beam diameter of different low-power laser photobiomodulation devices in clinical use in Brazil.
methodsThe power and light-emitting beam diameter of twenty-four therapeutic devices with an average age of 11±5 years, with an average weekly use of fewer than thirty minutes, were measured.
resultsThe analyzed power varied between 2% to 134% of the values declared by the manufacturers. Differences in beam diameter of between 38% and 543% of the nominal values were also observed. It is also noteworthy that even between the same brand and model, differences in diameter were obtained. Finally, differences were observed in the power output after one and three minutes of sequential emission for 830 nm and 904 nm (p < 0.05), but not when comparing the difference between wavelengths in factor time.
conclusionThere is a need for a shared effort on the part of laser manufacturers to improve standardization and consistency of laser output power and beam diameters. At the same time, medical laser operators should also consider development of standardized protocols for maintenance and monitoring equipment performance over time to correct for fluctuations that could ultimately impact on treatment outcomes.
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.