SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Efficacy of laser acupuncture for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laser acupuncture (LA) has been increasingly investigated as a non-invasive therapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet its clinical efficacy remains uncertain. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LA for pain, function, and mobility in KOA through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA with sham, placebo, electroacupuncture, or standard care were identified from major databases. Outcomes included pain (VAS, WOMAC-Pain, NPRS, PI), function (WOMAC-Function), and range of motion (flexion). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, and heterogeneity explored through subgroup analyses. Thirteen RCTs of 611 participants were included. LA did not significantly improve WOMAC pain (SMD 0.04; 95% CI - 0.36 to 0.45), pVAS (SMD 0.12; 95% CI - 0.91 to 1.15), or NPRS (SMD - 0.23; 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.12). Function showed a nonsignificant trend toward improvement (SMD - 0.32; 95% CI - 0.94 to 0.30), and knee flexion outcomes were also nonsignificant (SMD 0.10; 95% CI - 0.39 to 0.59). Substantial heterogeneity (I² > 70%) was observed across studies, likely related to differences in wavelength (650-904 nm), dosage, and acupoint protocols. Funnel plots did not suggest marked publication bias. Current evidence does not demonstrate statistically significant benefits of LA over comparators for pain, function, or flexion in KOA. Considerable heterogeneity and variability in laser parameters limit firm conclusions. Large, standardized RCTs with optimized parameters are needed to confirm efficacy and guide clinical application.Clinical trial number: Not applicable.
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.