Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Efficacy of Laser Therapy in Wound Repair: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Woodruff, Lynda D., Bounkeo, Julie M., Brannon, Windy M., Dawes, Kenneth S., Barham, Cameron D., Waddell, Donna L., Enwemeka, Chukuka S.·2004·Photomedicine and Laser Surgery

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/1549541041438623

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 358

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
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.