SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Umbrella review of low-level light therapy: evidence across clinical conditions.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-level light therapy (LLLT) and photobiomodulation (PBM) have been studied in diverse clinical fields. Although numerous systematic reviews have been published, their findings are fragmented and inconsistent. This umbrella review of systematic reviews aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of LLLT across various clinical conditions. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to February 24, 2026. Eligible studies were systematic reviews or meta-analyses of LLLT in humans. Data on clinical conditions, intervention characteristics, overall direction of conclusions, and adverse events were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. A total of 100 systematic reviews were included, representing 1,164 primary-study occurrences and 790 unique eligible primary studies. Oral and dental conditions accounted for the largest evidence base (53 reviews), followed by musculoskeletal disorders (22 reviews), oncology-related complications (8 reviews), and wound and lymphatic conditions (8 reviews). Overall, 62 reviews reached conclusions favoring the evaluated intervention, 34 reported neutral or mixed conclusions, and 4 had unclear conclusions. The highest proportion of favorable conclusions was observed for oncology-related complications. Of the 100 reviews, 11 reported one or more adverse events or side effects, 32 explicitly reported no adverse events, and 57 did not provide adverse-event information. Most reviews received low (30.0%) or critically low (60.0%) overall confidence ratings using AMSTAR 2. The review literature suggests potential clinical benefit of LLLT in selected indications, particularly oncology-related complications such as oral mucositis. However, these descriptive patterns do not establish treatment efficacy or the certainty of the underlying evidence. Heterogeneity in treatment parameters, generally low methodological confidence, and incomplete adverse-event reporting limit interpretation and preclude firm conclusions about safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878931What 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.