ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Clinical practice recommendations and expected outcomes with fluorescent light energy: a Delphi-like consensus.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluorescent Light Energy (FLE) is a promising alternative to systemic therapies in veterinary dermatology and surgery for managing skin conditions and improving the quality of life of animals and their owners. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesIn the absence of specific recommendations for FLE use, an international DELPHI consensus research project was conducted to establish best practices.
methodsAn international Steering Committee (SC) of a board-certified veterinary surgeon and veterinary dermatologists combined a literature review with clinical expertise to create recommendations. General practitioners and veterinarians of various specialties were selected to review and vote on the recommendations. Votes were collected electronically, independently, and anonymously.
resultsThe statements covering the following topics were analyzed in this paper: (i) Understanding photobiomodulation via FLE; (ii) Indications and Protocols for FLE; and (iii) FLE pet owner information. Consensus was reached on 33 out of 33 statements (100%) addressing the use of photobiomodulation via FLE; the practical modalities of FLE as monotherapy or adjunct therapy; healing biological benefits of photobiomodulation; reduction of antibiotic use in the management of bacterial skin infections; clinical indications where FLE can show the most favorable results along with protocols and duration of treatment; and communication with animal owners on safety measures and FLE’s benefits for their animal. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: This consensus provides practical guidelines on the utilization, application, and benefits of FLE when addressing veterinary dermatological conditions. It contributes to optimizing animal and owner welfare and bridges the gap between expert recommendations and the real-life experiences of general practice veterinarians.
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.