ReviewInternational journal of exercise science2024
A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effects of Photobiomodulation Therapy on Running Performance.
Review in International journal of exercise science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute dose-response effect of photobiomodulation therapy on 5-km running performance in trained runners: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.Lasers in medical science · 2024Trial
- Repair and regeneration across the lifespan: an ontogenetic perspective.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of Photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy on running performance. Introduction: PBM has recently been advocated as a valuable non-pharmacological ergogenic strategy, however, the efficacy of PBM on running performance remains unproven. Methods: A computerized literature search was conducted until June 2023. The databases searched were PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were determined through the PICO process. The running variables analyzed were time-trial or time-to-exhaustion. Results were combined with the standardized mean differences (SMD) and the 95% confidence intervals. Results: Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No significant effects in favor of PBM were found (SMD = 0.13; Conclusion: Our findings indicate that PBM alone or combined with a training program does not improve running performance in terms of time-trial and time-to-exhaustion testing. More studies involving PBM plus training and doses higher than 1000 J are needed to determine if PBM is effective in improving running performance.
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.