Table 2.
Interventions
| Trial | Laser diode Pulse mode Wavelength (nm) | Dose/point (J) Spot size (cm2) |
Mean laser power (mW) (peak power) |
Energy density (J/cm2) J/cm2 |
Power density (W/cm2) | Sessions/weeks Points treated per session Time (s) |
Co-intervention | Details of sham control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
*Alayat24 (2014) |
Nd:YAG Pulsed 1064 |
25 0.2 |
1786 (3 kW) |
0.61 | 8.9 | 12/4 8 14 |
Exercise | No description of control device or if separate device used. Success of blinding not reported |
| Ay25 (2010) |
GaAlA Pulsed 805 |
2.8 0.07 |
12 (100 mW) |
40 | 1.4 | 15/3 2–4 240 |
Hot packs | Control used same machine without turning on device. Success of blinding not reported |
|
†Basford26 (1999) |
Nd:YAG Continuous 1060 |
239 4.9 |
2660 | 49 | 0.542 | 12/4 8 90 |
Nil | Control irradiated by the same but inactive probes. Not clear if separate machine used. Success of blinding not reported (there was a tendency for patients to experience ‘more warmth with active treatment’) |
|
‡Djavid27 (2007) |
GaAlAs Continuous 810 |
<7.5 0.22 |
50 | 27 | 8.2 | 12/6 8 <150 |
Exercise | Control was irradiated with inactive probes. Not clear if separate machines used. Procedure to ensure masking not described, and success of blinding not reported |
|
§Glazov28 (2009) |
GaAlAs Continuous 830 |
0.2 0.2 |
10 | 1 | 0.05 | 10/10 8 20 |
Exercise |
aDevice custom designed for this research. Success of blinding confirmed by statistical analysis |
|
§Glazov18 (2014) |
GaAlAs Continuous 830 |
0.2 0.2 |
20 | 1, 4 |
0.1 | 8/8 9 10, 40 |
Nil |
aDevice custom designed for this research. Success of blinding confirmed by statistical analysis |
|
¶Klein29 (1990) |
GaAs Pulsed 904 |
1.3 1.0 |
5.4 | 1.3 | 0.005 | 12/4 50 240 |
Exercise | Machine was modified by manufacturer with a toggle switch with two settings, only one of which activated the laser. Single device used. Success of blinding not reported |
| Konstant-inovic30 (2011) |
GaAs Pulsed 905 |
3 1.0 |
100 | 3 | 0.1 | 15/3 4 60 |
Exercise | Two machines were used labelled A or B; one with active laser, another deactivated. Patients and therapist treating the patients could not distinguish which was active or control. Success of blinding not reported |
|
**Lin31 (2012) |
NR Pulsed 808 |
12 0.8 |
20 (40 mW) |
15 | 0.025 | 5/1 4 600 |
Soft cupping | Control group had the same procedure as the laser group but without laser radiation. No other details given. Success of blinding not reported |
| Okomoto22 (1989) |
GaAlAs Continuous 830 |
18 0.126 |
30 | 143 | 0.24 | 10/3 1 600 |
Nil | Two machines of identical appearance used (A and B) corresponding to laser or placebo laser; each had decoy with light and sound. No other details given in paper. Success of blinding not reported |
|
††Ruth21 (2010) |
NR Continuous 680, 785 |
60–180 ? |
50–150 | ? | 1–5 | 10/5 8 1200 |
Nil | Toggle switch on same machine operated by independent person according to randomisation list. Goggles on participants, and controls on machine covered by opaque black tape. Success of blinding confirmed by statistical analysis |
|
‡‡Soriano32 (1998) |
GaAs Pulsed 904 |
4 ? 0.95 |
40 (20W) |
4.2 | 0.04 | 10/2 ? ? |
Nil | Used an activated laser and a deactivated laser but the electrical circuit, timer and alarm worked as usual. Not clear if separate devices used. Success of blinding not reported |
| Umegaki23 (1989) |
GaAlAs Continuous 830 |
18 0.126 |
30 | 143 | 0.24 | 10/3 2 600 |
Nil | Two machines of identical appearance used (A and B) corresponding to laser or placebo laser; each had decoy with light and sound. No other details given in paper. Success of blinding not reported |
|
§§Vallone33 (2014) |
GaAlAs Continuous 980 |
1200 32 |
20 000 | 37.5 | 0.625 | 9/3 6 60 |
Exercise | Dials showing the on/off power setting of machine were not within view of subjects. Success of blinding not reported |
|
¶¶Wallace34 (1996) |
GaAlAs Continuous 830 |
1.1 0.42 |
37 | 2.64 | 0.09 | 5/5 8 30 |
Nil | Independent assistant operated and covered the coded switch on laser machine determining if laser on or off. Appearance of machine the same regardless of laser output. Success of blinding not reported |
Entries in bold were not reported/unavailable and were calculated or assumed by reviewers.
*‘High intensity laser therapy’. Also included manual scanning of fields (2×1400 J). Total dose/session 3000 J.
†Laser device allowed simultaneous stimulation of two points.
‡Total treatment duration 20 mins including eight points and manual scanning of standardised field (time differential not reported but assume <150 s per discrete point). Total dose/session 60 J.
§aLaser/sham mode set by operating a number on dial. Probe had decoy light/sound device inbuilt. Individualised treatment (average 8–9 points/session) including local and distal GV, BL and GB points and ah shi points.
¶Multi-head device stimulating 10 points simultaneously.
**Multi-channel device. Simultaneous stimulation of four points (bilateral BL40 and two ah shi points in lumbar region).
††‘Laser needle’ fibre-optic cable device. Simultaneous stimulation of eight points (individualised treatment including BL23, BL40, BL60, KI3, GB and ah shi points). Same author previously described34 laser output tip diameters 2.0 and 0.8 mm (=power density 1 W/cm2 and 5 W/cm2, respectively.
‡‡‘2 cm grid in painful area’ (number of points and irradiation time per point unreported). Spot size given as 0.0015 cm2 but 1.1 cm2 with irradiation time 100 s according to Cochrane review.11
§§Unclear if manual scanning used.
¶¶Individualised treatment: local (BL26, ah shi points, GV2) and distal (GV14, BL11, LR3, BL60, LI4, ST36, SP6, PC6, HT7).
NR, not reported.