The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Efficacy of Laser Therapy in Wound Repair: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature
Abstract
Objective: We determined the overall effects of laser therapy on tissue healing by aggregating the literature and subjecting studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria to statistical meta-analysis. Background Data: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) devices have been in use since the mid sixties, but their therapeutic value remains doubtful, as the literature seems replete with conflicting findings. Materials and Methods: Pertinent original research papers were gathered from library sources, online databases and secondary sources. The papers were screened and coded; those meeting every inclusion and exclusion criterion were subjected to meta-analysis, using Cohen's d . statistic to determine the treatment effect size of each study. Results: Twenty-four studies with 31 effect sizes met the stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall mean effect of laser therapy on wound healing was highly significant (d = +2.22). Sub-analyses of the data revealed significant positive effects on wound healing in animal experiments (d = +1.97) as well as human clinical studies (d = +0.54). The analysis further revealed significant positive effects on specific indices of healing, for example, acceleration of inflammation (d = +4.45); augmentation of collagen synthesis (d = +1.80); increased tensile strength (d = +2.37), reduced healing time (d = +3.24); and diminution of wound size (d = +0.55). The Fail-Safe number associated with the overall effect of laser therapy was 509; a high number representing the number of additional studies—in which laser therapy has negative or no effect on wound healing—required to negate the overall large effect size of +2.22. The corresponding Fail-Safe number for clinical studies was 22. Conclusion: We conclude that laser therapy is an effective tool for promoting wound repair.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Use of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) For Musculoskeletal Pain
B Cotler, H. (2015) · MOJ Orthopedics & Rheumatology · doi:10.15406/mojor.2015.02.00068 · Cited by 379
Hawkins, D., & Abrahamse, H. (2006) · Photomedicine and Laser Surgery · doi:10.1089/pho.2006.24.705 · Cited by 279
Mignon, C., Tobin, D. J., Zeitouny, M., & Uzunbajakava, N. E. (2018) · Biomedical Optics Express · doi:10.1364/boe.9.000852 · Cited by 43
(2015) · PubMed Central · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Woodruff, L. D., Bounkeo, J. M., Brannon, W. M., Dawes, K. S., Barham, C. D., Waddell, D. L., & Enwemeka, C. S.
- Venue
- Photomedicine and Laser Surgery
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 241-247
- ISSN
- 1549-5418 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8550
- OpenAlex
- W2059590451
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Efficacy of Laser Therapy in Wound Repair: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/1549541041438623
- The paper
- Woodruff, L. D., Bounkeo, J. M., Brannon, W. M., Dawes, K. S., Barham, C. D., Waddell, D. L., & Enwemeka, C. S. (2004). The Efficacy of Laser Therapy in Wound Repair: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1089/1549541041438623
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.