Effect of pulsing in low-level light therapy
Review of 33 studies comparing CW and pulsed laser treatments. A common criticism of these studies is the lack of direct, like-for-like comparison of pulsed treatment to CW. The article concludes “CW is the gold standard and has been used for all LLLT applications” and “there is no consensus on the effects of different frequencies and pulse parameters on the physiology and therapeutic response of various disease states that are often treated with laser therapy. This has allowed manufacturers to claim advantages of pulsing without hard evidence to back up their claims.”
Published: Lasers Surg Med. 2010; 42(6): 450–466. doi:10.1002/lsm.20950.
Keywords: low level light therapy; photobiomodulation; frequency; pulse duration; duty cycle; clinical trials
Comments