Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38600582›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

Devices used for photobiomodulation of the brain-a comprehensive and systematic review.

Filipa Fernandes, Sofia Oliveira, Francisca Monteiro, Michael Gasik, Filipe S Silva, Nuno Sousa, Óscar Carvalho, Susana O Catarino

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. [A simulation study of photothermal effects in transcranial photobiomodulation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Transcranial photobiomodulation for the treatment of chemobrain: new perspectives from a pilot study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Photosensitivity of an aging brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors.

Filipa FernandesCenter for Micro-ElectroMechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal. id10486@alunos.uminho.pt.
Sofia OliveiraCenter for Micro-ElectroMechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal.
Francisca MonteiroCenter for Micro-ElectroMechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal.
Michael GasikDepartment of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering, Aalto University Foundation, Espoo, Finland.
Filipe S SilvaCenter for Micro-ElectroMechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal.
Nuno SousaLife and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), University of Minho, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal.
Óscar CarvalhoCenter for Micro-ElectroMechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal.
Susana O CatarinoCenter for Micro-ElectroMechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal. scatarino@dei.uminho.pt.

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia 2020.00215.CEECINDFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UI/BD/09735/2020Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UI/BD/150951/2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic review was conducted to determine the trends in devices and parameters used for brain photobiomodulation (PBM). The revised studies included clinical and cadaveric approaches, in which light stimuli were applied to the head and/or neck. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were used for the systematic search. A total of 2133 records were screened, from which 97 were included in this review. The parameters that were extracted and analysed in each article were the device design, actuation area, actuation site, wavelength, mode of operation, power density, energy density, power output, energy per session and treatment time. To organize device information, 11 categories of devices were defined, according to their characteristics. The most used category of devices was laser handpieces, which relate to 21% of all devices, while 28% of the devices were not described. Studies for cognitive function and physiological characterisation are the most well defined ones and with more tangible results. There is a lack of consistency when reporting PBM studies, with several articles under defining the stimulation protocol, and a wide variety of parameters used for the same health conditions (e.g., Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease) resulting in positive outcomes. Standardization for the report of these studies is warranted, as well as sham-controlled comparative studies to determine which parameters have the greatest effect on PBM treatments for different neurological conditions.

Indexed as

Low-Level Light TherapyBrainCognitionHumansLasersBrain stimulationLight therapyNeurological pathologiesOptical devicePhotobiomodulation

Identifiers

PMID38600582
PMCPMC11007916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.