SynthesisFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2026
Photobiomodulation in chronic pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Photobiomodulation (PBM) stands out as a promising therapeutic alternative for the management of chronic pain, but there is still controversy regarding its efficacy and safety, given the diversity of protocols and populations evaluated. Objectives: To critically review the available literature on the use of PBM in adults with chronic pain conditions, synthesizing the evidence on analgesic and functional effects, impact on quality of life, and safety profile. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and MEDLINE, including articles published between September 2015 and September 2025. Randomized clinical trials that compared PBM protocols to placebo, sham, or conventional care were selected. The outcomes investigated included pain intensity (primary), function, quality of life, and occurrence of adverse events (secondary). Results: Fourteen studies were included, covering populations with fibromyalgia, peripheral neuropathies, orofacial pain, and musculoskeletal pain. Most trials demonstrated significant pain reduction with PBM, particularly in fibromyalgia and neuropathy. In some studies, functional gains and improved quality of life were observed. The incidence of adverse events was low, reinforcing the method's safety, although the heterogeneity of technical parameters compromises the standardization of results. Conclusion: PBM has analgesic potential and a safe profile for managing chronic pain, especially in cases difficult to control with conventional therapies. However, the variability of clinical parameters and limited follow-up still hinder more comprehensive recommendations. Additional multicenter studies with standardized protocols are needed to consolidate clinical guidelines. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251140711, Identifier: CRD420251140711.
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.