Trial reportCoDAS2025
Immediate effects of photobiomodulation with low-level laser in women with no laryngeal or voice changes: preliminary results.
Trial report in CoDAS, 2025. 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.
- Trial
- A single photobiomodulation session selectively improves vocal stability and respiratory capacity in teachers with severe vocal fatigue.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
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
purposeTo assess the safety and immediate effect of photobiomodulation of low-level laser in vocally healthy women.
methodsExperimental research in 36 vocally healthy women aged 18 to 45 years, with skin phototype I to III and body mass index below 25. Participants were randomized to form four groups: Group 1: placebo laser photobiomodulation followed by voiced tongue trill technique (VTTT); Group 2: 3 J infrared laser per point (total 21 J) followed by VTTT; Group: 3: 6 J infrared laser per point (total 42 J) followed by VTTT; and Group 4: 9 J infrared laser per point (total 63 J) followed by VTTT. The following outcomes were assessed: auditory-perceptual evaluation, acoustic analysis (jitter, shimmer, amplitude perturbation quotient [APQ], noise-to-harmonic ratio, period perturbation quotient, cepstral peak prominence, and cepstral peak prominence smoothed), and self-perceived phonatory effort. All participants' records were taken before and immediately after the experiments.
resultsThere was no significant difference in voice quality, acoustic parameters, or self-perceived phonatory discomfort between intervention moments in the placebo, VTTT + 3 J, and VTTT + 6 J groups in the intragroup comparison. G4 (VTTT + 9 J) decreased shimmer and APQ aperiodicity measures (respective p-values: 0.033; 0.044).
conclusionResults indicate aperiodicity measures improved with VTTT preceded by 9 J low-level laser application per point, commending this irradiation dosimetry as a possible energy for voice therapy in light-skinned and normal-BMI women. There was no evidence of worsened measures or in-creased discomfort with this resource, indicating it is safe for clinical practice.
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.