SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy for tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised 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. 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
Abstract
Tendinopathy is a common musculoskeletal disorder causing significant pain and functional impairment. High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has increasingly been employed for tendinopathy. However, further research is required to elucidate therapeutic efficacy differences across various subtypes, determine optimal treatment parameters, and assess long-term effects. To evaluate the effectiveness of HILT for tendinopathy. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine, Web of Science, CNKI, and SCOPUS databases were searched to include randomised controlled trials comparing HILT with placebo or other treatments up to 20 October 2025. Primary outcome measures included pain intensity and disability, analyzed as MD and SMD with 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Heterogeneity was assessed with I², and random-effects models were used. 15 studies involving 629 patients were included: lateral epicondylitis (53%), rotator cuff tendinopathy (27%), and others (20%). Studies showed moderate quality (mean PEDro score 6.3), with strong randomisation (100% low risk) but weaknesses in allocation concealment (20% low risk) and blinding. HILT significantly improved pain (MD: -1.15; 95%CI: -1.73 to -0.58) and disability (SMD: -1.00; 95%CI: -1.77 to -0.22, p < 0.05). Pain reduction exceeded the MCID, though the lower confidence interval bound suggests marginal benefit in some. For disability, subgroup analysis by anatomical site revealed greater improvement in shoulder-related conditions (MD: -2.54) than in elbow-related conditions (MD: -0.91). Stress pain showed the most substantial relief (MD: -2.30), and treatment effects increased over time, peaking after 16 weeks. HILT effectively improves pain and disability in tendinopathy, with site-specific and cumulative benefits. Given methodological limitations, future high-quality studies are needed to optimize parameters and confirm long-term benefits.
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.