Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorTomazoni, Shaiane Silva
dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Matheus Oliveira
dc.contributor.authorBjordal, Jan Magnus
dc.contributor.authorStausholm, Martin Bjørn
dc.contributor.authordos Santos Monteiro Machado, Caroline
dc.contributor.authorLeal, Ernesto Cesar Pinto Jr
dc.contributor.authorCosta, Leonardo Oliveira Pena
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-15T09:26:10Z
dc.date.available2021-07-15T09:26:10Z
dc.date.created2020-08-23T20:07:39Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1836-9553
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2764482
dc.description.abstractQuestion: In people with non-specific low back pain (LBP), what are the effects of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) on pain, disability and other outcomes when compared with no intervention, sham PBMT and other treatments, and when used as an adjunct to other treatments? Design: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. Participants: People with acute/subacute or chronic non-specific LBP. Interventions: Any type of PBMT (laser class I, II and III and light-emitting diodes) compared with no treatment, sham PBMT and other types of treatment, or used as an adjunct to another treatment. Outcome measures: Pain intensity, disability, overall improvement, quality of life, work absence and adverse effects. Results: Twelve randomised controlled trials were included (pooled n = 1,046). Most trials had low risk of bias. Compared with sham PBMT, the effect of PBMT on pain and disability was clinically unimportant in people with acute/subacute or chronic LBP. In people with chronic LBP, there was no clinically important difference between the effect of PBMT and the effect of exercise on pain or disability. Although benefits were observed on some other outcomes, these estimates were imprecise and/or based on low-quality evidence. PBMT was estimated to reduce pain (MD −11.20, 95% CI −20.92 to −1.48) and disability (MD −11.90, 95% CI −17.37 to −6.43) more than ultrasound, but these confidence intervals showed important uncertainty about whether the differences in effect were worthwhile or trivial. Conversely, PBMT was estimated to reduce pain (MD 19.00, 95% CI 9.49 to 28.51) and disability (MD 17.40, 95% CI 8.60 to 26.20) less than Tecar (Energy Transfer Capacitive and Resistive) therapy, with marginal uncertainty that these differences in effect were worthwhile. Conclusion: Current evidence does not support the use of PBMT to decrease pain and disability in people with non-specific LBP.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titlePhotobiomodulation therapy does not decrease pain and disability in people with non-specific low back pain: a systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 Australian Physiotherapy Associationen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jphys.2020.06.010
dc.identifier.cristin1824676
dc.source.journalJournal of Physiotherapyen_US
dc.source.pagenumber155-165en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Physiotherapy. 2020, 66 (3), 155-165.en_US
dc.source.volume66en_US
dc.source.issue3en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal