Trial reportPhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Low-Level Laser Therapy Versus Mirror Therapy for Post-Stroke Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplex Regional Pain Syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I) following stroke has been managed by several conservative methods to date. But the efficacy of Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was never compared with the Mirror therapy (MT) in these cases. AIM AND
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of LLLT versus MT in post-stroke CRPS-I. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis comparative interventional study (Trial registration number: CTRI/2025/05/086943) was initially conducted with 47 patients with post-stroke CRPS-I after considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, they were randomly divided into two groups. Along with kinesiotherapy in both the groups, LLLT was administered for Group 1 and MT for Group 2. Intensity of pain was measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) was used for assessing sensorimotor recovery. All the variables were measured at the baseline, 4 weeks/visit 2, 8 weeks/visit 3 and 12 weeks/visit 4. A total of 44 cases (22 in each group) were analysed, as there were 3 dropouts on subsequent follow-ups.
resultsIntra-group analysis showed significant improvement in both the parameters during all the follow-ups (p < 0.001). During inter group comparison, Group1 showed a significant improvement during follow-up at 4 weeks in terms of both pain intensity (P
conclusionLLLT demonstrated an early between-group advantage over MT at 4 weeks in pain reduction and sensorimotor recovery in post-stroke CRPS-I. However, in the long run, no overall between-group superiority was noted, as both groups achieved comparable outcomes.
trial registrationInstitutional Scientific and Ethics committee (Reg. No: ECINEW/INST/2023/1862) approval no: NRSMC/IEC/149/2024.Trial Reg. no of this study under Clinical Trials Registry-India: CTRI/2025/05/086943.
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.