SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the acute effects of photobiomodulation therapy on the maximum number of repetitions in resistance exercise in young adults.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has reportedly improved muscle endurance in healthy individuals. However, the influence of possible moderating factors (light source, body limb, sex, and irradiation dose) on muscle endurance remains unknown. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to determine whether potential moderating factors (light source [laser vs. light-emitting diodes (LED)], body limb [upper vs. lower], sex [men vs. women], and irradiated dose]) influence the effects of PBMT on muscular endurance in terms of the maximum number of repetitions in resistance exercise in healthy young adults. The databases, PubMed, Central, Embase, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science (last updated February 5, 2025), were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials. The eligibility criteria were determined using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) method. The main outcome was the maximum number of repetitions, and the data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. Twelve studies (n = 346 participants) were included in the analyses. There was an overall effect in favor of PBMT (MD = 3.87 [95% CI: 1.06; 6.69], p = 0.01), compared with the placebo. Compared with the placebo, there was an effect in favor of laser (MD = 3.68 [95% CI: -0.07; 7.44], p = 0.05) and LED (MD = 4.12 [95% CI: -0.13; 8.37], p = 0.057), without difference between the light sources. There was a greater effect of PBMT for the upper limb compared with the lower limb (p = 0.02). Compared with the placebo, there was a significant effect of PBMT for the lower (MD = 1.17 [95% CI: 0.03; 2.32], p = 0.04) and upper limbs (MD = 5.87 [95% CI: 3.11; 8.63], p < 0.001). Compared with the placebo, PBMT had an effect for men (MD = 5.24 [95% CI: 1.61; 8.87], p = 0.005) but not for women (MD = 2.37 [95% CI: -1.78; 6.53], p = 0.26), without difference between sexes. The slope of the meta-regression showed a reduction in effect with increasing dose for the upper limb (slope; p = 0.05; Fig. 7A), but not for the lower limb (slope; p = 0.44; Fig. 7B). In conclusion, PBMT improved muscular endurance in terms of the maximum number of repetitions in healthy young adults. This effect was similar between laser and LED, and to a greater extent in upper limb muscles than in lower limb muscles. Furthermore, PBMT appears to promote greater benefits in men than in women. However, these results should be cautiously interpreted because literature still presents a limited number of studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated as low or very low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40205065What 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.