ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Photobiomodulation for Pain, Healing, and Analgesic Use after Perineal Lacerations: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisApproximately 60% of women experience some degree of perineal laceration following vaginal delivery. Although there is evidence supporting the use of photobiomodulation (PBM) for pain relief and wound healing in various conditions, there is a lack of studies on its effect on these lacerations. Our hypothesis is that PBM aids in pain management and healing in perineal lacerations/episiotomies in hospitalized women. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial in women with grade I/II lacerations and/or episiotomy, assigned to the intervention group (660 nm; 4 J) or placebo group (device turned off). Primary outcome was perineal pain at rest and during movements, measured using the numeric rating scale. Secondary outcome was healing, measured using the REEDA (redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, approximation) scale. Additionally, in-hospital analgesic consumption, self-perception of perineal laceration healing, and satisfaction with the intervention were analyzed. Analysis performed pre-intervention (6-12 h postpartum), post-intervention 1 (6-12 h post-first intervention), post-intervention 2 (12-18 h post-first intervention), and follow-up (7-15 days postpartum). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis using the Mann-Whitney test.
resultsA total of 59 women participated (intervention 30; placebo 29), most of whom were primiparous. The intragroup analysis shows a reduction in perineal pain during rest and movements, with improved healing in both groups. No difference was observed in intergroup analysis. The intervention group consumed fewer analgesics and had a longer interval between doses than the placebo group.
conclusionPhotobiomodulation (660 nm; 4 J) applied within 24 h postpartum, did not result in clinical improvement in pain or healing in women with perineal lacerations/episiotomies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42307744What 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.