Yejun Son, Hyeri Lee, Seungyeong Yu, Hyeon Jin Kim, Jaeyu Park, Selin Woo, Hayeon Lee, Guillaume Fond, Laurent Boyer, Masoud Rahmati, Lee Smith, Guillermo F López Sánchez, Elena Dragioti, Jiseung Kang, Tae Kim, Dong Keon Yon
{"title":"Effects of photobiomodulation on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Yejun Son, Hyeri Lee, Seungyeong Yu, Hyeon Jin Kim, Jaeyu Park, Selin Woo, Hayeon Lee, Guillaume Fond, Laurent Boyer, Masoud Rahmati, Lee Smith, Guillermo F López Sánchez, Elena Dragioti, Jiseung Kang, Tae Kim, Dong Keon Yon","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02902-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive therapy increasingly used for pain, inflammation, and tissue repair, yet a comprehensive synthesis of its effectiveness across multiple health outcomes remains lacking. Herein, we aimed to systematically assess the clinical effects and strength of evidence for PBM across a wide range of health outcomes using data from existing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of RCTs, searching five databases up to December 8, 2023. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 and evaluated certainty of evidence using a modified GRADE framework. Pooled effect sizes were recalculated as equivalent standardized mean differences (eSMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023495502).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 meta-analyses encompassing 204 RCTs and over 9000 participants were included, covering 35 health endpoints across 15 disease conditions. PBM showed significant effects for 12 outcomes, with moderate certainty of evidence supporting improvements in burning mouth syndrome (pain reduction, eSMD - 0.92 [95% CI - 1.38 to - 0.46]), knee osteoarthritis (disability, 0.65 [0.14 to 1.15]), fibromyalgia (fatigue, 1.25 [0.63 to 1.87]), androgenetic alopecia (hair density, 1.32 [1.00 to 1.63]), and cognitive function (0.49 [0.14 to 0.84]). Most other outcomes exhibited low or very low certainty due to heterogeneity or small-study effects. P-curve and funnel plot analyses indicated evidential value for several outcomes, though potential publication bias was identified in some.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PBM appeared beneficial for some health conditions, such as the strongest support for fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis-related disability, and cognitive impairment. However, given the overall low-to-moderate certainty of evidence for most endpoints, further high-quality trials and standardization of PBM protocols are warranted before widespread clinical adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"160"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12326686/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02902-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive therapy increasingly used for pain, inflammation, and tissue repair, yet a comprehensive synthesis of its effectiveness across multiple health outcomes remains lacking. Herein, we aimed to systematically assess the clinical effects and strength of evidence for PBM across a wide range of health outcomes using data from existing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of RCTs, searching five databases up to December 8, 2023. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 and evaluated certainty of evidence using a modified GRADE framework. Pooled effect sizes were recalculated as equivalent standardized mean differences (eSMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023495502).
Results: A total of 15 meta-analyses encompassing 204 RCTs and over 9000 participants were included, covering 35 health endpoints across 15 disease conditions. PBM showed significant effects for 12 outcomes, with moderate certainty of evidence supporting improvements in burning mouth syndrome (pain reduction, eSMD - 0.92 [95% CI - 1.38 to - 0.46]), knee osteoarthritis (disability, 0.65 [0.14 to 1.15]), fibromyalgia (fatigue, 1.25 [0.63 to 1.87]), androgenetic alopecia (hair density, 1.32 [1.00 to 1.63]), and cognitive function (0.49 [0.14 to 0.84]). Most other outcomes exhibited low or very low certainty due to heterogeneity or small-study effects. P-curve and funnel plot analyses indicated evidential value for several outcomes, though potential publication bias was identified in some.
Conclusions: PBM appeared beneficial for some health conditions, such as the strongest support for fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis-related disability, and cognitive impairment. However, given the overall low-to-moderate certainty of evidence for most endpoints, further high-quality trials and standardization of PBM protocols are warranted before widespread clinical adoption.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.