Lanzamiento Enero 2027

Metaanálisis2010Financiación no declarada

Low level laser treatment of tendinopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Tumilty S, Munn J, McDonough S, Hurley DA, Basford JR, Baxter GD

Photomedicine and laser surgery · 118 citas

Etiquetas de revisión

Financiación no declarada

Datos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.

Cómo se estudió

Diseño
Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
Estudiado en
Personas
Resultado principal
Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento

Quién lo pagó

Financiación
Financiación no declarada

Publicación

Publicado
2009-08-26 · Photomed Laser Surg · vol. 28 · número 1 · págs. 3–16
Editorial
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Citado
223 citas · más que el 86% de estudios similares · 1.9× el promedio de su campo
Referencias
64 trabajos
Acceso
De pago
Áreas de investigación
Tendon Structure and Treatment · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Palabras clave
low-level laser therapy, tendinopathy, lateral epicondylitis, Achilles tendinopathy, treatment efficacy, grip strength, analgesia, tendon injury
MeSH
humans, tendinopathy, controlled clinical trials as topic, low-level light therapy

6 autores

  • Steve Tumilty🇳🇿 · autor de correspondenciaUniversity of Otago
  • Joanne Munn🇳🇿University of Otago
  • Suzanne McDonough🇬🇧University of Ulster
  • Deirdre A. Hurley🇮🇪University College Dublin
  • Jeffrey R. Basford🇺🇸Mayo Clinic
  • David G. Baxter🇳🇿University of Otago

Resumen

El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.

Objectives

To assess the clinical effectiveness of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of tendinopathy. Secondary objectives were to determine the relevance of irradiation parameters to outcomes, and the validity of current dosage recommendations for the treatment of tendinopathy.

Background

LLLT is proposed as a possible treatment for tendon injuries. However, the clinical effectiveness of this modality remains controversial, with limited agreement on the most efficacious dosage and parameter choices.

Method

The following databases were searched from inception to 1(st) August 2008: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, All EBM reviews, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), SCOPUS. Controlled clinical trials evaluating LLLT as a primary intervention for any tendinopathy were included in the review. Methodological quality was classified as: high (> or =6 out of 10 on the PEDro scale) or low (<6) to grade the strength of evidence. Accuracy and clinical appropriateness of treatment parameters were assessed using established recommendations and guidelines.

Results

Twenty-five controlled clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. There were conflicting findings from multiple trials: 12 showed positive effects and 13 were inconclusive or showed no effect. Dosages used in the 12 positive studies would support the existence of an effective dosage window that closely resembled current recommended guidelines. In two instances where pooling of data was possible, LLLT showed a positive effect size; in studies of lateral epicondylitis that scored > or =6 on the PEDro scale, participants' grip strength was 9.59 kg higher than that of the control group; for participants with Achilles tendinopathy, the effect was 13.6 mm less pain on a 100 mm visual analogue scale.

Conclusion

LLLT can potentially be effective in treating tendinopathy when recommended dosages are used. The 12 positive studies provide strong evidence that positive outcomes are associated with the use of current dosage recommendations for the treatment of tendinopathy.

Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.

Confianza de la comunidad

Cargando…

¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?

0 · nada10 · totalmente

Comentarios

¿Algo está mal aquí?

Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.

Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.