ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Infrared and Laser for Pain and Healing of Postpartum Perineal Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe effectiveness of far-infrared radiation (FIR) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for postpartum pelvic floor pain and healing remains unclear. The study proposes that FIR and LLLT may be more effective than no treatment or standard conservative approaches in relieving pain and enhancing tissue healing after childbirth-related perineal trauma.
methodsThe review protocol was registered in PROSPERO. The systematic search was conducted between February and March 2024. Randomized and quasi-experimental trials for pain and healing of postpartum perineal injuries were included. PEDro scale and ROBINS-2 were used to evaluate the studies. Fixed or random effects models based on study heterogeneity were calculated using the I
resultsNine studies met criteria and were included in the review. Five were included in the meta-analyses. Three investigated the effects of FIR compared to no treatment or sitz baths for pain relief without differences between the interventions [-0.54; 95% CI (-2.26, 1.18), p = 0.54]. Two studies compared LLLT and placebo/sham therapy with no differences between them on pain in two moments: at 20-24 h [0.12; 95% CI (-1.74, 1.98), p = 0.90] and at 40-48 h postpartum [-0.02; 95% CI (-1.89, 1.84), p = 0.98]; and no differences between the treatments on healing were evidenced at 20-24 h [0.30; 95% CI (-0.35, 0.95), p = 0.36], and at 40-48 h postpartum [-0.02; 95% CI (-1.89, 1.84), p = 0.98].
conclusionsFIR and LLLT showed no added benefit over conventional treatments for pain relief and wound healing in perineal injuries post-vaginal delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42217018What 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.