Trial reportLasers in medical science2026
Efficacy of home-based low-level laser therapy in patients with low back pain: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study tests the effect of home-based portable low-level laser therapy(spot size of the laser 0.16 cm2, consisting of a total 110 pieces of multi-wavelength vertical-cavity surface-emittinglaser diodes(55 units at 670nm with 1mW output each, 25 units at 780nm with 2mW output each, 10 units at 830nm with 15mW output each, and 20 units at 910nm with 5mW output each) for treatment of patients with chronic low back pain. Thirty patients with low back pain were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, home-based self-therapy trial. The experimental group (n = 15) received laser stimulation of the painful area of their backs using the CarerayTM, while the control group (n = 15) received sham stimulation using identical equipment that generated a red light only without laser output. Both groups self-treated for 20 minutes a day, 5 days a week for 3 weeks (a total of 15 sessions).The primary outcome was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain, ranging from 0 (painless) to 10 (extreme pain). The secondary outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index-Korean test (ODI-K), Schober’s test, and a 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Outcome measurements were taken before and after treatment. All thirty participants provided outcome data. After the intervention, both groups reported significantly reduced VAS scores. In the experimental group, scores decreased from a pre-treatment average of 4.38±1.19 to a post-treatment average of 3.25±1.04, a change of ∆1.13±1.13 (p = 0.026). The control group's scores dropped from a pre-treatment average of 4.00±0.53 to a post-treatment average of 2.88±0.83, a change of ∆1.13±0.83 (p = 0.024) in the within-group comparison. Both group showed a significant improvement in Schober’s test results (experiment group: p = 0.007, control group: p = 0.002). In the ODI-K and SF-36, both group showed improvements, but only the control group showed significant improvements. There were no significant differences between the two groups across all outcomes, and no side effects were reported. Medical laser irradiation is a portable and easy to use laser therapeutic modality without side effects. Further research is needed regarding physical therapeutic modalities that are readily accessible to patients experiencing chronic low back pain.
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.