PBM in guidelines
Recommendations and mentions in clinical guidelines, consensus and position documents.
About this collection
A targeted public-web collection, checked 15–16 October 2026; not an exhaustive systematic review. Each indication groups its statements, which retain their specific population, use and outcome setting. Multiple statements may come from one document; the counts are not independent guideline votes or endorsements.
Clinical practice guidelines are labelled separately from consensus, position papers and other document types. Strength and evidence certainty retain each source’s own grading system and cannot be ranked across systems. “Supportive evidence statement”, “Expert protocol / consensus” and “Mention only” do not establish a formal clinical recommendation.
PBM, low-level laser/light therapy and broader laser terminology are retained as used in the sources. Some recommendations combine LLLT with high-intensity laser or concern laser acupuncture; check the intervention and setting. Known historical editions are flagged (18 statements); the remaining editions have not all been confirmed as the latest version. Source access, dates, excerpts and qualifications are available in each entry. The workbook also retains the search and screening records.
Country / scope describes the issuing organization, development panel or stated guideline area, not author nationality. International and regional labels are retained; “Not stated” means the retrieved source did not establish a country or scope. Year is the guideline edition, which may differ from journal publication.
-
Achilles tendinopathy
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2026Country: United States Selected chronic Achilles tendinopathyRecommended / permittedLLLT is recommended for selected chronic Achilles tendinopathy after prior treatments have generally failed, with concurrent eccentric exercise. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Selected chronic Achilles tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- Recommended, Evidence (C)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Selected chronic cases, generally after failed NSAIDs, eccentric exercise, iontophoresis and injection(s); concurrent eccentric exercise
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Restricted later-line setting; not routine first-line treatment. Source regimen: 12 sessions over 8 weeks. Distinct from APTA 2024's recommendation against routine LLLT.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Ankle and Foot Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 29 January 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 68
- Document notes
- The chronic-Achilles positive recommendation is restricted to selected patients after other treatments; plantar-fasciitis opening sentence has a modality inconsistency recorded at row level.
Low-level laser therapy is recommended for treatment of select patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 68Statement ACHILLES-ACOEM-CHRONIC
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2026Country: United States Acute, subacute or postoperative Achilles tendinopathyInsufficient / conflicting evidenceNo recommendation for or against LLLT in these settings. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute, subacute or postoperative Achilles tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or postoperative Achilles tendinopathy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Ankle and Foot Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 29 January 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 69
- Document notes
- The chronic-Achilles positive recommendation is restricted to selected patients after other treatments; plantar-fasciitis opening sentence has a modality inconsistency recorded at row level.
There is no recommendation for or against the use of low-level laser therapy for treatment of acute, subacute, or post-operative Achilles tendinopathy.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 69Statement ACHILLES-ACOEM-OTHER
-
Document: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Year: 2024Country: United States Midportion Achilles tendinopathyRecommendation againstClinicians should not use LLLT for midportion Achilles tendinopathy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Midportion Achilles tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Midportion Achilles tendinopathy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Applies to midportion tendinopathy; not automatically every insertional or acute Achilles disorder.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Achilles Pain, Stiffness, and Muscle Power Deficits: Midportion Achilles Tendinopathy Revision 2024
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 revision
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary and 2024 Recommendation: Physical agents – LLLT
- Document notes
- Published final article retrieved from IFSPT.
Clinicians should not use low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Summary and 2024 Recommendation: Physical agents – LLLTStatement ACHILLES-APTA
-
Document: Dutch Association of Sports Medicine-led multidisciplinary guideline panel Year: 2021Country: Netherlands Achilles tendinopathy after initial rehabilitationMay considerIncludes laser/light among additional options that may be discussed after an inadequate response, with explicit uncertainty about added benefit. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Achilles tendinopathy after initial rehabilitation
- Strength as reported
- Can be considered; grouped additional modalities
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Persistent symptoms after 3 months of education, structured exercise and loading advice; continue exercise
- Intervention
- Laser therapy and light therapy; class unspecified
- Qualification
- This is a shared-decision option within a mixed list, not proof that PBM adds benefit or a replacement for continued exercise. The device class is unspecified.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Dutch Association of Sports Medicine-led multidisciplinary guideline panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 document
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Module 4 / Submodule 4.3: non-surgical treatment options / Recommendations
- Document notes
- The additional-treatment list includes laser/light among passive modalities only after a core education, loading and exercise programme. Shared discussion must address uncertainty of additional benefit. No isolated PBM efficacy or certainty grade is inferred.
laser therapy and light therapy
Source excerpt · Module 4 / Submodule 4.3: non-surgical treatment options / RecommendationsStatement ACHILLES-DUTCH-2021
-
-
Acne vulgaris
-
Document: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group Year: 2025Country: Europe Comedonal acneInsufficient / conflicting evidencePlaces visible light and laser among interventions for which no recommendation for or against can be made. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Comedonal acne
- Strength as reported
- Open recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Induction treatment of comedonal acne
- Intervention
- Visible light / laser; not a PBM-only device class
- Qualification
- The open category means no recommendation for or against. The separate blue-light recommendation does not support red/NIR PBM, and IPL/PDT/ablative laser are different interventions.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Update labelled 2025; companion short version published 2026; expires June 2030
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 6.1.1 graphical table, printed p. 27 / PDF p. 33; rationale p. 31
- Document notes
- Clinical rows follow the official long version. DOI/year 2026 refer to its published companion short version, not an extra guideline. Graphical recommendation tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually inspected. Open recommendation means no recommendation for or against. Blue-light monotherapy has a different low-strength recommendation, which is not transferred to red/NIR PBM. IPL, PDT and ablative laser are not treated as PBM.
- Source issue
The 2025 long version and 2026 short publication describe one update. Low-strength blue-light recommendations coexist with open red-light/other-light categories. Some recommendation tables are graphical.
Official tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually checked. Blue-light, IPL, PDT and ablative-laser positions are not transferred to red/NIR PBM; edition and journal year are separated.
no clear recommendations could be drawn
Source excerpt · Section 6.1.1 graphical table, printed p. 27 / PDF p. 33; rationale p. 31Statement ACNE-EUROGUIDERM-COMEDONAL
-
Document: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group Year: 2025Country: Europe Acne maintenance therapyInsufficient / conflicting evidenceCannot recommend for or against red-light maintenance treatment because of insufficient evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acne maintenance therapy
- Strength as reported
- Open recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Maintenance therapy across stated acne severities
- Intervention
- Red light; within an open recommendation listing several separate modalities
- Qualification
- The open category means no recommendation for or against. The separate blue-light recommendation does not support red/NIR PBM, and IPL/PDT/ablative laser are different interventions.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Update labelled 2025; companion short version published 2026; expires June 2030
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 7.1, printed p. 66 / PDF p. 72
- Document notes
- Clinical rows follow the official long version. DOI/year 2026 refer to its published companion short version, not an extra guideline. Graphical recommendation tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually inspected. Open recommendation means no recommendation for or against. Blue-light monotherapy has a different low-strength recommendation, which is not transferred to red/NIR PBM. IPL, PDT and ablative laser are not treated as PBM.
- Source issue
The 2025 long version and 2026 short publication describe one update. Low-strength blue-light recommendations coexist with open red-light/other-light categories. Some recommendation tables are graphical.
Official tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually checked. Blue-light, IPL, PDT and ablative-laser positions are not transferred to red/NIR PBM; edition and journal year are separated.
maintenance treatment with red light, blue light, IPL, Laser, PDT or oral zinc
Source excerpt · Section 7.1, printed p. 66 / PDF p. 72Statement ACNE-EUROGUIDERM-MAINTENANCE
-
Document: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group Year: 2025Country: Europe Mild to moderate papulopustular acneInsufficient / conflicting evidenceThe recommendation table places red light in the open category; available evidence does not permit a recommendation for or against. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Mild to moderate papulopustular acne
- Strength as reported
- Open recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Induction therapy; severity-specific recommendation table
- Intervention
- Red light; separately listed from IPL, laser and PDT
- Qualification
- The open category means no recommendation for or against. The separate blue-light recommendation does not support red/NIR PBM, and IPL/PDT/ablative laser are different interventions.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Update labelled 2025; companion short version published 2026; expires June 2030
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- 6.2.1 graphical table, printed p. 32 / PDF p. 38; rationale printed pp. 35–38
- Document notes
- Clinical rows follow the official long version. DOI/year 2026 refer to its published companion short version, not an extra guideline. Graphical recommendation tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually inspected. Open recommendation means no recommendation for or against. Blue-light monotherapy has a different low-strength recommendation, which is not transferred to red/NIR PBM. IPL, PDT and ablative laser are not treated as PBM.
- Source issue
The 2025 long version and 2026 short publication describe one update. Low-strength blue-light recommendations coexist with open red-light/other-light categories. Some recommendation tables are graphical.
Official tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually checked. Blue-light, IPL, PDT and ablative-laser positions are not transferred to red/NIR PBM; edition and journal year are separated.
insufficient evidence to recommend the treatment of papulopustular acne with
Source excerpt · 6.2.1 graphical table, printed p. 32 / PDF p. 38; rationale printed pp. 35–38Statement ACNE-EUROGUIDERM-MILD
-
Document: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group Year: 2025Country: Europe Severe papulopustular / moderate nodular acneInsufficient / conflicting evidenceThe recommendation table places red light in the open category; available evidence does not permit a recommendation for or against. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Severe papulopustular / moderate nodular acne
- Strength as reported
- Open recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Induction therapy; severity-specific recommendation table
- Intervention
- Red light; separately listed from IPL, laser and PDT
- Qualification
- The open category means no recommendation for or against. The separate blue-light recommendation does not support red/NIR PBM, and IPL/PDT/ablative laser are different interventions.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Dermatology Forum / EuroGuiDerm acne guideline group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Update labelled 2025; companion short version published 2026; expires June 2030
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- 6.2.2 graphical table, printed p. 33 / PDF p. 39; rationale printed pp. 35–38
- Document notes
- Clinical rows follow the official long version. DOI/year 2026 refer to its published companion short version, not an extra guideline. Graphical recommendation tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually inspected. Open recommendation means no recommendation for or against. Blue-light monotherapy has a different low-strength recommendation, which is not transferred to red/NIR PBM. IPL, PDT and ablative laser are not treated as PBM.
- Source issue
The 2025 long version and 2026 short publication describe one update. Low-strength blue-light recommendations coexist with open red-light/other-light categories. Some recommendation tables are graphical.
Official tables on printed pp. 27, 32–33 were visually checked. Blue-light, IPL, PDT and ablative-laser positions are not transferred to red/NIR PBM; edition and journal year are separated.
insufficient evidence to recommend the treatment of papulopustular acne with
Source excerpt · 6.2.2 graphical table, printed p. 33 / PDF p. 39; rationale printed pp. 35–38Statement ACNE-EUROGUIDERM-SEVERE
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Recommended / permittedPBM is recommended for acne; the panel reports strong recommendation and high-quality evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acne vulgaris
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High-quality
- Population / setting
- Acne; monotherapy or adjunct according to Question 6
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 6
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Acne vulgaris
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 6Statement CHINA-ACNE
-
-
Acute musculoskeletal injuries (excluding low back)
-
Document: American College of Physicians (ACP) / American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Year: 2020Country: United States Acute non-low-back musculoskeletal injury: pain at 1–7 daysNo benefit in stated comparisonReports no statistically significant pain reduction at 1–7 days with laser compared with placebo. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute non-low-back musculoskeletal injury: pain at 1–7 days
- Strength as reported
- No standalone laser recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low-certainty evidence
- Population / setting
- Adults with acute non-low-back musculoskeletal injuries; pain versus placebo at 1–7 days
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; class unspecified in guideline narrative
- Qualification
- This is a specified pain outcome, not a blanket recommendation against laser. The guideline separately reports improved overall symptom relief. The named device class is generic laser therapy.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Physicians (ACP) / American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2020 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Comparative benefits / Pain at 1 to 7 Days, PDF p. 4
- Document notes
- Complete published guideline PDF was read from a public nonprofit-hosted copy and corroborated against AAFP's official summary. Pain at 1–7 days and overall symptom relief differ. The outcome section calls symptom-relief evidence moderate certainty but the recommendation rationale calls it low certainty. Laser is not among the recommended interventions because the panel required improvement in at least two outcomes; no blanket recommendation against laser is inferred.
- Source issue
Symptom Relief calls laser evidence moderate certainty; the recommendation rationale on PDF p. 6 calls laser symptom-relief evidence low certainty. Pain at 1–7 days is separately low certainty and not statistically improved.
Outcome rows are separated. Both conflicting symptom-relief labels are retained; the panel’s two-outcome threshold explains why laser is not among selected recommendations. No blanket strong-against recommendation is invented.
laser therapy (low-certainty evidence)
Source excerpt · Comparative benefits / Pain at 1 to 7 Days, PDF p. 4Statement ACUTE-ACP-AAFP-PAIN
-
Document: American College of Physicians (ACP) / American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Year: 2020Country: United States Acute non-low-back musculoskeletal injury: overall symptom reliefSupportive evidence statementReports improved overall symptom relief with laser, but the panel did not include it among recommended treatments because it required improvement in at least two outcomes. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute non-low-back musculoskeletal injury: overall symptom relief
- Strength as reported
- Not selected among recommended interventions; only one outcome improved
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate certainty in Symptom Relief; low certainty in recommendation rationale (source inconsistency)
- Population / setting
- Adults with acute non-low-back musculoskeletal injuries; overall symptom relief versus placebo
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; class unspecified in guideline narrative
- Qualification
- The source gives conflicting certainty labels for the same symptom-relief outcome. Both labels are retained rather than harmonized. Large odds-ratio estimates are not generalized to pain, function or every PBM device.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Physicians (ACP) / American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2020 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Comparative benefits / Symptom Relief, PDF p. 4; recommendation rationale p. 6
- Document notes
- Complete published guideline PDF was read from a public nonprofit-hosted copy and corroborated against AAFP's official summary. Pain at 1–7 days and overall symptom relief differ. The outcome section calls symptom-relief evidence moderate certainty but the recommendation rationale calls it low certainty. Laser is not among the recommended interventions because the panel required improvement in at least two outcomes; no blanket recommendation against laser is inferred.
- Source issue
Symptom Relief calls laser evidence moderate certainty; the recommendation rationale on PDF p. 6 calls laser symptom-relief evidence low certainty. Pain at 1–7 days is separately low certainty and not statistically improved.
Outcome rows are separated. Both conflicting symptom-relief labels are retained; the panel’s two-outcome threshold explains why laser is not among selected recommendations. No blanket strong-against recommendation is invented.
only interventions that improved at least 2 outcomes
Source excerpt · Comparative benefits / Symptom Relief, PDF p. 4; recommendation rationale p. 6Statement ACUTE-ACP-AAFP-SYMPTOMS
-
-
Alopecia areata
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China May considerOffers a weak recommendation for PBM in alopecia areata. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Alopecia areata
- Strength as reported
- Weak
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate-quality
- Population / setting
- Alopecia areata
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 10
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Alopecia areata
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 10Statement CHINA-AA
-
-
Androgenetic alopecia
-
Document: Canadian androgenetic alopecia expert panel (11 physicians) Year: 2025Country: Canada Androgenetic alopecia in adultsMay considerAbstract onlyThe indexed abstract lists LLLT among interventions recommended with near consensus as part of an AGA regimen. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia in adults
- Strength as reported
- Recommended with near consensus; abstract wording
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Male and female adults with AGA
- Intervention
- Low level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Full-text vote, protocol, device details and qualifications were inaccessible. Near consensus is preserved and not promoted to unanimous or strong recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Canadian androgenetic alopecia expert panel (11 physicians). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 document
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Abstract only
- Location in source
- Primary indexed abstract / recommended with near consensus
- Document notes
- The primary indexed abstract places LLLT among recommended interventions with near consensus. Exact vote, dose, device and full-text qualifications remain unverified. A national expert consensus is not automatically a national health-authority or society CPG.
Five interventions are recommended with near consensus
Source excerpt · Primary indexed abstract / recommended with near consensusStatement AGA-CANADA-2025
-
Document: Egyptian national expert panel, coordinated by Venus Research Center Year: 2025Country: Egypt Supportive evidence statementThe panel agrees that LLLT three times weekly can shift hair measures toward more terminal hair and larger shaft diameter. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia
- Strength as reported
- Consensus statement 17; 95% agreement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- AGA; statement discusses three sessions per week
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Agreement percentage is not certainty or a quantitative treatment effect. The wording is a supportive consensus statement, not an independently graded universal prescription.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Egypt
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Egyptian national expert panel, coordinated by Venus Research Center. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 document
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 1, statement 17 / Key Area 4: Low-Level Laser Therapy
- Document notes
- Statement 17 is a supportive clinical-effects statement with 95% panel agreement. Agreement is not a GRADE certainty rating or a treatment effect estimate. Regulatory and mechanistic claims in the discussion are not generalized here.
Low-level laser therapy three times per week causes a decrease in the number of vellus hairs
Source excerpt · Table 1, statement 17 / Key Area 4: Low-Level Laser TherapyStatement AGA-EGYPT-2025
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Recommended / permittedRecommends PBM as a first-line or adjunctive option for AGA. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High-quality
- Population / setting
- AGA; first-line or adjunctive use within consensus
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 10
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Androgenetic alopecia
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 10Statement CHINA-AGA
-
Document: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.) Year: 2025Country: International Androgenic alopeciaSupportive evidence statementAbstract onlyThe expert consensus identifies PBM as an effective treatment option for androgenic alopecia. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenic alopecia
- Strength as reported
- Expert-panel consensus; no indication-specific strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult medical / dermatologic applications as stated in the abstract
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Published in JAAD; no AAD organizational endorsement verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / multidisciplinary consensus
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract and author-repository abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Results
- Document notes
- Publication in JAAD does not establish an American Academy of Dermatology organizational endorsement. Indication-specific grades were not available in the abstract.
androgenic alopecia
Source excerpt · Abstract, ResultsStatement JAAD-AGA
-
Document: Spanish Hair Disorders Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GEDA / AEDV) Year: 2024Country: Spain Androgenetic alopecia: adjunctive treatmentMay considerThe consensus describes LLLT as having proven but variable adjunctive efficacy and advises individualized use. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia: adjunctive treatment
- Strength as reported
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Individualized adjunctive treatment
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Expert consensus; a laser-specific formal grade was not verified in this narrative passage.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Spain
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Spanish Hair Disorders Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GEDA / AEDV). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Procedures in the management of androgenetic alopecia
- Document notes
- General adjunctive use, adolescent use and pregnancy are distinct consensus statements. Expert-level LE 5 / GR D is preserved where reported.
low-level laser therapy were considered to have proven but variable efficacy
Source excerpt · Procedures in the management of androgenetic alopeciaStatement AGA-SPAIN-ADJUNCT
-
Document: Spanish Hair Disorders Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GEDA / AEDV) Year: 2024Country: Spain Androgenetic alopecia in adolescentsMay considerLLLT may be considered as an adjunct, while the panel explicitly states that efficacy and safety evidence in adolescents is insufficient. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia in adolescents
- Strength as reported
- D
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 5
- Population / setting
- Adolescents with male/female androgenetic alopecia; adjunctive treatment
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Expert-opinion level 5 / grade D is not a finding of established efficacy or safety in adolescents.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Spain
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Spanish Hair Disorders Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GEDA / AEDV). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 7; Pediatric/Adolescent patients
- Document notes
- General adjunctive use, adolescent use and pregnancy are distinct consensus statements. Expert-level LE 5 / GR D is preserved where reported.
Adjuvant treatments such as platelet-rich plasma therapy or low-level laser therapy can be considered in adolescent patients
Source excerpt · Table 7; Pediatric/Adolescent patientsStatement AGA-SPAIN-ADOLESCENT
-
Document: Spanish Hair Disorders Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GEDA / AEDV) Year: 2024Country: Spain Androgenetic alopecia during pregnancyMay considerThe expert consensus allows consideration of LLLT if clinically necessary during pregnancy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia during pregnancy
- Strength as reported
- D
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 5
- Population / setting
- Pregnancy; only if clinically necessary
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Expert opinion, not a general conclusion that PBM is proven safe during pregnancy or for other body sites.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Spain
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Spanish Hair Disorders Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GEDA / AEDV). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 7; Pregnancy
- Document notes
- General adjunctive use, adolescent use and pregnancy are distinct consensus statements. Expert-level LE 5 / GR D is preserved where reported.
Low-level laser therapy and PRP therapy may be considered if clinically necessary
Source excerpt · Table 7; PregnancyStatement AGA-SPAIN-PREGNANCY
-
Document: Japanese Dermatological Association Year: 2017Country: Japan Male and female pattern hair lossRecommended / permittedIrradiation by LED and low-level lasers is recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Male and female pattern hair loss
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Male and female pattern hair loss; CQ5
- Intervention
- LED and low-level lasers
- Qualification
- 2017 guideline edition, English publication 2018. B is the source's recommendation grade; not a harmonized GRADE rating.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese Dermatological Association. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 guideline version; English publication 2018
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ5; PDF pp. 8–9
- Document notes
- Published journal article PDF; CQ5 grades LED/low-level laser irradiation B.
Irradiation by light-emitting diodes (LED) and low-level lasers is recommended.
Source excerpt · CQ5; PDF pp. 8–9Statement AGA-JAPAN
-
Document: European Dermatology Forum Year: 2017Country: Europe Androgenetic alopecia: adjunctive useMay considerSuggests LLLT as adjunctive therapy using settings with demonstrated efficacy in randomized trials. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia: adjunctive use
- Strength as reported
- Suggest / upward arrow
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of evidence 2
- Population / setting
- Men and women with AGA; adjunctive LLLT using RCT-supported energy levels
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The short version appeared in 2018; full guideline is the 2017 update.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / hair
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Dermatology Forum. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 full guideline; short journal version 2018
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.6.7; PDF p. 40
- Document notes
- The full EDF guideline was read, not only the short abstract.
We suggest using LLLT as ancillary therapy
Source excerpt · Section 3.6.7; PDF p. 40Statement AGA-S3
-
Document: European Dermatology Forum Year: 2017Country: Europe Androgenetic alopecia: use beyond 6 monthsInsufficient / conflicting evidenceCannot recommend for or against treatment beyond 6 months. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Androgenetic alopecia: use beyond 6 months
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation for or against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- LLLT treatment for AGA for more than 6 months
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Keep the long-term evidence gap next to the positive adjunctive-use recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / hair
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Dermatology Forum. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 full guideline; short journal version 2018
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.6.7; PDF p. 40
- Document notes
- The full EDF guideline was read, not only the short abstract.
We cannot make a recommendation for or against treatment for more than 6
Source excerpt · Section 3.6.7; PDF p. 40Statement AGA-S3-LONG
-
-
Ankle sprain
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2026Country: United States Acute ankle sprainRecommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for acute ankle sprain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute ankle sprain
- Strength as reported
- Moderately Not Recommended, Evidence (B)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Moderate
- Population / setting
- Acute ankle sprain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Ankle and Foot Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 29 January 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 179
- Document notes
- The chronic-Achilles positive recommendation is restricted to selected patients after other treatments; plantar-fasciitis opening sentence has a modality inconsistency recorded at row level.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of acute ankle sprain.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 179Statement ANKLE-ACOEM-ACUTE
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2026Country: United States Subacute or chronic ankle sprainRecommendation againstLLLT is not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Subacute or chronic ankle sprain
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Moderate
- Population / setting
- Subacute or chronic ankle sprain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Ankle and Foot Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 29 January 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 179
- Document notes
- The chronic-Achilles positive recommendation is restricted to selected patients after other treatments; plantar-fasciitis opening sentence has a modality inconsistency recorded at row level.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of subacute or chronic ankle sprain.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 179Statement ANKLE-ACOEM-CHRONIC
-
Document: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Year: 2021Country: United States Acute lateral ankle sprainMay considerClinicians may use LLLT for pain reduction in the initial phase of an acute lateral ankle sprain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute lateral ankle sprain
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Initial phase of acute lateral ankle sprain; pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A pain recommendation in the acute initial phase; not a claim about chronic ankle instability.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Ankle Stability and Movement Coordination Impairments: Lateral Ankle Ligament Sprains Revision 2021
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 revision
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 3 and 33; Low-level laser therapy
Clinicians may use low-level laser therapy to reduce pain
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 3 and 33; Low-level laser therapyStatement ANKLE-APTA
-
Document: Dutch multidisciplinary ankle-sprain guideline group (Vuurberg et al.) Year: 2018Country: Netherlands Acute lateral ankle sprainRecommendation againstLaser is among modalities not advised because no strong evidence of effectiveness was identified. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute lateral ankle sprain
- Strength as reported
- Other therapies not advised; recommendation level 2
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Laser evidence described as level 1
- Population / setting
- Acute lateral ankle sprain; laser among other adjunctive modalities
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The reported evidence and recommendation levels use the Dutch source's framework.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of ankle sprains: update of an evidence-based clinical guideline
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Dutch multidisciplinary ankle-sprain guideline group (Vuurberg et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2018 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Other therapies; evidence statement and unchanged recommendation
- Document notes
- Laser appears within the group of other therapies not advised for acute lateral ankle sprains.
they are not advised in the treatment of acute LAS
Source excerpt · Other therapies; evidence statement and unchanged recommendationStatement ANKLE-DUTCH
-
-
Aphthous ulcers and herpetic oral lesions
-
Document: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) Year: 2022Country: United States Supportive evidence statementThe policy describes possible pain and inflammation relief with PBM and other laser modalities, while requesting better pediatric parameters. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Aphthous ulcers and herpetic oral lesions
- Strength as reported
- No laser-specific recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Children; pain and inflammation from aphthous ulcers / herpetic lesions
- Intervention
- PBM plus other laser types; mixed intervention statement
- Qualification
- Grouped PBM, erbium and CO2 laser wording; no single PBM device or dose is endorsed.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Latest revision 2022; retrieved in the 2025 Reference Manual
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 3 / printed p. 143, Background
- Document notes
- Society policy with narrative PBM applications. The general laser policy is not a formal PBM-specific graded clinical practice guideline.
more studies are needed to establish the laser type and therapeutic parameters
Source excerpt · PDF p. 3 / printed p. 143, BackgroundStatement ULCERS-AAPD
-
-
Behavioral dysphonia without laryngeal injury
-
Document: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil) Year: 2025Country: Brazil Expert protocol / consensusThe expert panel reached content-validity consensus on this use. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Behavioral dysphonia without laryngeal injury
- Strength as reported
- CVC 0.81; consensus threshold ≥0.75
- Evidence certainty as reported
- No GRADE efficacy rating
- Population / setting
- Behavioral dysphonia without laryngeal injury
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Consensus on an expert-use statement is not a proven treatment effect.
- Specialty in collection
- Voice / speech therapy
- Country / scope
- Brazil
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 Delphi consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, item 16
- Document notes
- CVC values measure agreement/content validity among seven experts; they are not clinical efficacy or GRADE certainty ratings. Non-consensus indications are retained.
I use PBM in cases of patients with behavioral dysphonia without laryngeal injury.
Source excerpt · Table 2, item 16Statement VOICE-BEHAVIORAL-CONSENSUS
-
-
Bicipital tendinopathy
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Bicipital tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Bicipital tendinopathies
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Shoulder Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 216
- Document notes
- Official California MTUS-linked copy. Recommendation, ACOEM evidence grade and confidence are separate fields.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for the treatment of bicipital tendinopathies.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 216Statement BICEPS-ACOEM
-
-
Bone necrosis associated with cancer therapy
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Bone necrosis associated with cancer therapy
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated bone necrosis associated with cancer therapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.8.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Bone necrosis
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.8.1Statement WALT22-BONE
-
-
Burning mouth syndrome
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2026Country: International Primary burning mouth syndromeRecommended / permittedProvides WALT clinical practice guidance supporting PBM for primary BMS. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Primary burning mouth syndrome
- Strength as reported
- WALT clinical practice guidelines
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE I (authors' classification)
- Population / setting
- Neuropathic pain in primary burning mouth syndrome
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The rating belongs to this WALT paper; it is not a cross-society consensus or an independently regraded result.
- Specialty in collection
- Orofacial pain / PBM position paper
- Document
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain—WALT Position Paper 2026
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.3.1; Table 4
- Document notes
- Distinguishes BMS clinical practice guidance from expert consensus for trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia.
WALT Recommendation: Clinical Practice Guidelines
Source excerpt · Section 4.3.1; Table 4Statement WALT26-BMS
-
Document: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies) Year: 2021Country: Japan Insufficient / conflicting evidenceGives no recommendation for LLLT; few studies and very-low-certainty evidence do not establish sufficient benefit. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Burning mouth syndrome
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation; 100% agreement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- D (very low)
- Population / setting
- Non-drug treatment of burning mouth syndrome
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The weak recommendation for cognitive behavioral therapy is separate and must not be transferred to LLLT.
- Specialty in collection
- Oral medicine / neurology
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition; official public main-guideline PDF
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ M-3-4, printed pp. 205–206 / PDF pp. 207–208, item 2
- Document notes
- Public society-hosted PDF contains the main recommendations through printed p. 276; the complete print book also has supplementary material. Japanese no-recommendation wording is retained, even where the narrative describes possible adjunctive benefit. The shoulder-stiffness chapter concerns katakori, not adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff disease.
エビデンス総体の統括：D（非常に低い）
Source excerpt · CQ M-3-4, printed pp. 205–206 / PDF pp. 207–208, item 2Statement BMS-JAPAN-2021
-
-
Cancer therapy-associated oral mucositis and acute radiation dermatitis
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Recommended / permittedRecommends PBM for prevention and treatment of these cancer-therapy toxicities. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Cancer therapy-associated oral mucositis and acute radiation dermatitis
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High-quality
- Population / setting
- Prevention and treatment of oral mucositis and acute radiation dermatitis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 12
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Conditions secondary to cancer therapies
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 12Statement CHINA-CANCER
-
-
Cancer therapy-associated peripheral neuropathy
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Cancer therapy-associated peripheral neuropathy
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated cancer therapy-associated peripheral neuropathy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.12.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
peripheral neuropathy
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.12.1Statement WALT22-CIPN
-
-
Carpal tunnel syndrome
-
Document: APTA Orthopedics / APTA Hand and Upper Extremity Year: 2026Country: United States May considerClinicians may use LLLT or HILT for short-term improvement in pain and function. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Carpal tunnel syndrome
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Nonsurgically managed mild to moderate CTS; short-term pain and function
- Intervention
- LLLT and HILT in a combined recommendation
- Qualification
- Combines LLLT and HILT. Short-term recommendation; not a long-term efficacy claim.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Orthopedics / APTA Hand and Upper Extremity. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 revision; replaces 2019
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 3 and 33; 2026 Recommendation
- Document notes
- The recommendation combines LLLT and HILT.
Clinicians may use either LLLT or HILT
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 3 and 33; 2026 RecommendationStatement CTS-APTA-2026
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for CTS. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Carpal tunnel syndrome
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Evidence (C)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic CTS
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 99
Low level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of acute, subacute, or chronic CTS.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 99Statement CTS-ACOEM
-
Document: AAOS (endorsed by ASSH) Year: 2024Country: United States Carpal tunnel syndrome: long-term outcomesNo benefit in stated comparisonLists laser among nonsurgical interventions that do not improve long-term patient-reported outcomes. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Carpal tunnel syndrome: long-term outcomes
- Strength as reported
- Limited option (downgraded)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High (for grouped nonoperative evidence; not a laser-only certainty grade)
- Population / setting
- Long-term patient-reported outcomes; nonsurgical treatments
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; multiple nonoperative treatments grouped
- Qualification
- The High rating belongs to the grouped recommendation, not a separately verified laser-only evidence grade; short- and long-term claims differ.
- Specialty in collection
- Orthopedics
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: AAOS (endorsed by ASSH). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 revision; replaces 2016
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 10 and 35, Non-operative treatments: long-term
do not improve long-term patient reported outcomes
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 10 and 35, Non-operative treatments: long-termStatement CTS-AAOS-2024
-
Document: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy / Hand and Upper Extremity Year: 2019Country: United States Carpal tunnel syndrome: historical APTA statementRecommendation againstHistoricalThe 2019 guideline advised against LLLT and other nonlaser light therapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Carpal tunnel syndrome: historical APTA statement
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Individuals with CTS; LLLT or nonlaser light therapy
- Intervention
- LLLT and other nonlaser light therapy
- Qualification
- Historical; reversed for short-term use in the 2026 revision.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy / Hand and Upper Extremity. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical; replaced by APTA 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Historical recommendation reproduced in 2026 full text
- Location in source
- Reproduced in APTA 2026, PDF p. 32, 2019 Recommendation
- Document notes
- The 2019 recommendation is reproduced verbatim in the 2026 revision, PDF p. 32. The standalone 2019 full text was blocked.
Clinicians should not use LLLT
Source excerpt · Reproduced in APTA 2026, PDF p. 32, 2019 RecommendationStatement CTS-APTA-2019
-
Document: AAOS Year: 2016Country: United States Carpal tunnel syndrome: historical AAOS statementMay considerHistoricalLimited evidence suggested laser might be effective compared with placebo. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Carpal tunnel syndrome: historical AAOS statement
- Strength as reported
- Limited
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser compared with placebo
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Historical; replaced by AAOS 2024. Do not label this the current AAOS position.
- Specialty in collection
- Orthopedics
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: AAOS. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical; replaced by AAOS 2024
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 11, Laser therapy
laser therapy might be effective compared to placebo
Source excerpt · PDF p. 11, Laser therapyStatement CTS-AAOS-2016
-
-
Cervicothoracic pain
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2018Country: United States Insufficient / conflicting evidenceNo recommendation for or against LLLT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Cervicothoracic pain
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic cervicothoracic pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Effective 17 October 2018; the retrieved copy has a 2020 copyright.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 17 October 2018; retrieved copyright 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Low-Level Laser Therapy; PDF p. 84
- Document notes
- Edition date is taken from the document header rather than the web directory.
There is no recommendation for or against the use of low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Low-Level Laser Therapy; PDF p. 84Statement NECK-ACOEM
-
-
Chemotherapy-induced alopecia
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chemotherapy-induced alopecia
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated chemotherapy-induced alopecia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.14.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
chemotherapy-induced alopecia
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.14.1Statement WALT22-ALOPECIA
-
-
Chronic leg ulcers
-
Document: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group Year: 2021Country: Finland Insufficient / conflicting evidenceCalls for additional research on the effectiveness of low-dose laser. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic leg ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Further research needed
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Chronic leg ulcers; low-dose laser and other adjunctive therapies
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The D grade nearby in the text refers to PRP, not laser; no laser-specific grade is assigned here.
- Specialty in collection
- Finnish clinical guideline
- Document
- Krooninen alaraajahaava
- Country / scope
- Finland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- In force on source page; published 9 April 2021
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Muut paikallishoidot / adjunctive treatments
pieniannoksisen laserhoidon
Source excerpt · Muut paikallishoidot / adjunctive treatmentsStatement FI-LEGULCER
-
-
Chronic musculoskeletal pain
-
Document: South African primary-health-care multidisciplinary Delphi research panel (Ernstzen et al.) Year: 2023Country: South Africa Chronic musculoskeletal pain: local applicability of LLLTMention onlyLLLT was the only nonpharmacological intervention with uncertain local applicability and feasibility. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic musculoskeletal pain: local applicability of LLLT
- Strength as reported
- Local applicability/feasibility not endorsed in initial Delphi round
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- South African primary health care; implementation context
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This concerns local implementation and resources, not a determination of clinical ineffectiveness or a standalone formal efficacy grade.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain / primary care
- Document
- Clinical recommendations for chronic musculoskeletal pain in South African primary health care
- Country / scope
- South Africa
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: South African primary-health-care multidisciplinary Delphi research panel (Ernstzen et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 contextualization consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Consensus findings before Table 5
- Document notes
- The LLLT passage concerns uncertainty about local applicability and feasibility, not proof of clinical ineffectiveness. Underlying guideline recommendations are being contextualized.
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was the only non-pharmacological intervention
Source excerpt · Consensus findings before Table 5Statement CMP-SOUTHAFRICA
-
Document: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies) Year: 2021Country: Japan Chronic musculoskeletal pain: physical modalitiesInsufficient / conflicting evidenceGives no recommendation for a physical-modalities group including LLLT, despite some short-term pain/function effects versus sham or no treatment. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic musculoskeletal pain: physical modalities
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation; 89.5% agreement; grouped modalities
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C (low); grouped physical modalities
- Population / setting
- Adults with chronic low-back pain, chronic neck pain or knee OA in CQ G-3
- Intervention
- LLLT within a group of physical modalities
- Qualification
- C/low is the grouped appraisal, not an isolated laser grade. Narrative favors any use as an exercise adjunct; medium/long-term effects remain unknown.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain medicine
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition; official public main-guideline PDF
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ G-3, printed pp. 134–135 / PDF pp. 136–137
- Document notes
- Public society-hosted PDF contains the main recommendations through printed p. 276; the complete print book also has supplementary material. Japanese no-recommendation wording is retained, even where the narrative describes possible adjunctive benefit. The shoulder-stiffness chapter concerns katakori, not adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff disease.
- Source issue
The PDPN narrative describes temporary adjunctive benefit, while the formal LLLT rating is no recommendation, C/low. The general physical-modalities rating is grouped.
Formal direction follows no recommendation; possible narrative benefit and group scope remain visible. Agreement percentages are not treatment response rates.
推奨度：推奨なし［合意率89.5％］
Source excerpt · CQ G-3, printed pp. 134–135 / PDF pp. 136–137Statement PAIN-JAPAN-PHYSICAL
-
-
Chronic neck/shoulder stiffness (katakori)
-
Document: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies) Year: 2021Country: Japan Supportive evidence statementDescribes short-term pain and physical-function benefit with low-level laser; medium/long-term benefit is unclear. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic neck/shoulder stiffness (katakori)
- Strength as reported
- Narrative answer; no separate LLLT recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low certainty in explanatory text; not separately graded
- Population / setting
- Katakori; non-drug and non-invasive interventions
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Katakori is not frozen shoulder or rotator cuff disease. A narrative benefit statement is not a strong formal recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain medicine
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition; official public main-guideline PDF
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ L-5, printed p. 191 / PDF p. 193
- Document notes
- Public society-hosted PDF contains the main recommendations through printed p. 276; the complete print book also has supplementary material. Japanese no-recommendation wording is retained, even where the narrative describes possible adjunctive benefit. The shoulder-stiffness chapter concerns katakori, not adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff disease.
物理療法（低出力レーザー）
Source excerpt · CQ L-5, printed p. 191 / PDF p. 193Statement NECK-JAPAN-KATAKORI
-
-
Complex regional pain syndrome
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Insufficient / conflicting evidenceNo recommendation regarding LLLT for CRPS. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Complex regional pain syndrome
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- CRPS; the source discusses prior trials of established treatments
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Pain
- Document
- Chronic Pain
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 22 December 2025; official California source path dated 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 151
- Document notes
- The current linked edition was retrieved; 2024 preliminary material was not counted separately.
There is no recommendation regarding low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for treatment of complex regional pain syndrome
Source excerpt · PDF p. 151Statement CRPS-ACOEM
-
-
Dentine hypersensitivity
-
Document: Middle East and Africa dental expert advisory panel (Cekici et al.) Year: 2025Country: Middle East & Africa May considerThe consensus describes lasers as an option, including diode lasers at high and low power; effectiveness depends on the laser used. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Dentine hypersensitivity
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus; no separate LLLT-only strength
- Evidence certainty as reported
- AI in the source's evidence-grade/level column; mixed lasers
- Population / setting
- In-office management; high- and low-power laser options
- Intervention
- Mixed laser modalities including low-power diode
- Qualification
- The AI notation is retained as reported for a mixed-laser row; it is not converted into high-certainty GRADE evidence for PBM alone.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral care
- Country / scope
- Middle East & Africa
The title and expert panel explicitly identify the Middle East and Africa as the regional context.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; advisory meeting June 2024
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, in-office treatment / laser row
- Document notes
- Mixed high/low-power laser evidence; source reports AI in an evidence-grade/level column. Sponsored advisory process is disclosed by the paper; no laser-only PBM GRADE rating is inferred.
diode laser (high and low power)
Source excerpt · Table 2, in-office treatment / laser rowStatement DENTINE-MEA
-
Document: Indian Society of Periodontology (ISP) Year: 2022Country: India Dentine hypersensitivity: laser treatment guidanceExpert protocol / consensusThe recommendations give a practical laser protocol, including diode options, while acknowledging no gold standard for parameters. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Dentine hypersensitivity: laser treatment guidance
- Strength as reported
- Good clinical practice guidance; no formal LLLT-specific grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- In-office laser option; low-power diode and high-power modalities discussed
- Intervention
- Low-power diode PBM and high-power lasers discussed separately
- Qualification
- The protocol mixes low- and high-power mechanisms. It is not a universal validated PBM dose or a standalone formal efficacy grade.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral care
- Country / scope
- India
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Indian Society of Periodontology (ISP). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 good clinical practice recommendations
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Occlusive approach by laser / Laser parameter settings
- Document notes
- Provides practical laser treatment guidance while acknowledging lack of a gold-standard parameter protocol; discusses both low-power diode and high-power approaches.
There is lack of evidence to suggest a gold standard for laser parameter settings
Source excerpt · Occlusive approach by laser / Laser parameter settingsStatement DENTINE-ISP
-
-
Diabetes-related foot ulcers
-
Document: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.) Year: 2025Country: International Pain attributed to diabetic foot ulcersSupportive evidence statementAbstract onlyThe expert consensus identifies PBM as an effective treatment option for pain attributed to diabetic foot ulcers. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pain attributed to diabetic foot ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Expert-panel consensus; no indication-specific strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult medical / dermatologic applications as stated in the abstract
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This is a pain claim, not a verified claim that diabetic foot ulcers heal faster; keep separate from IWGDF's wound-healing recommendation. Published in JAAD; no AAD organizational endorsement verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / multidisciplinary consensus
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract and author-repository abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Results
- Document notes
- Publication in JAAD does not establish an American Academy of Dermatology organizational endorsement. Indication-specific grades were not available in the abstract.
pain attributed to diabetic foot ulcers
Source excerpt · Abstract, ResultsStatement JAAD-DFU-PAIN
-
Document: International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot Year: 2023Country: International Recommendation againstDo not use physical therapies, including light/laser, for healing diabetes-related foot ulcers. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Diabetes-related foot ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low
- Population / setting
- Physical therapies for wound healing, including light and laser; adjunct to standard care
- Intervention
- Light and laser treatment within physical therapies
- Qualification
- This is a grouped physical-therapy recommendation; it is distinct from JAAD 2025 and WHS recommendations for other wound settings.
- Specialty in collection
- Wound care / diabetes
- Document
- Guidelines on interventions to enhance healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: 2023 update
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Reviewed edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 15; PDF p. 20 and rationale
Do not use any interventions reported in the field of physical therapies
Source excerpt · Recommendation 15; PDF p. 20 and rationaleStatement DFU-IWGDF
-
Document: Diabetes Feet Australia / Australian evidence-based diabetes-related foot disease guideline panel Year: 2021Country: Australia Diabetes-related foot ulcer healingRecommendation againstThe panel suggests not preferring physical-environment interventions over best standard care; laser is included in the clinical question and rationale. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Diabetes-related foot ulcer healing
- Strength as reported
- Weak / conditional; grouped physical modalities
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low; grouped assessment
- Population / setting
- Difficult-to-heal diabetes-related foot ulcers; physical modalities versus best standard care
- Intervention
- Physical therapies including laser, shockwaves, ultrasound, magnetism and electric current
- Qualification
- The Australian adaptation weakens IWGDF 2019's grouped recommendation. No isolated laser-only certainty grade is inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Wound care / diabetes
- Country / scope
- Australia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Diabetes Feet Australia / Australian evidence-based diabetes-related foot disease guideline panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 guideline; journal publication 2022
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 12; Clinical question and Summary justification
- Document notes
- Adapted from IWGDF 2019; physical-therapy recommendation includes laser in the clinical question/rationale. The Australian panel downgraded the grouped recommendation from strong to weak.
We suggest not using agents reported to have an effect on wound healing
Source excerpt · Recommendation 12; Clinical question and Summary justificationStatement DFU-AUSTRALIA-2021
-
-
Distal radius fracture rehabilitation
-
Document: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy / Hand and Upper Extremity Year: 2024Country: United States Recommended / permittedIncludes laser among physical agents to use as part of multimodal rehabilitation for short-term outcomes. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Distal radius fracture rehabilitation
- Strength as reported
- B (grouped physical-agent recommendation)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- After operative or nonoperative distal radius fracture management; short-term rehabilitation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The B grade applies to a group of physical agents; not every listed outcome is separately established for laser alone.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy / Hand and Upper Extremity. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 3 and 50; Therapeutic modalities
- Document notes
- Laser appears within a recommendation covering several physical agents.
including laser therapy
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 3 and 50; Therapeutic modalitiesStatement DRF-APTA
-
-
Dysgeusia / taste disturbances
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International DysgeusiaExpert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Dysgeusia
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated dysgeusia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.6.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Dysgeusia
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.6.1Statement WALT22-TASTE
-
Document: Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS) Year: 2016Country: France Taste disturbances associated with head and neck cancer treatmentSupportive evidence statementThe guidance lists low-intensity/energy laser to reduce mucositis and says it may also limit taste disturbance. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Taste disturbances associated with head and neck cancer treatment
- Strength as reported
- No laser-specific grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Mucositis-associated taste disturbance in head/neck cancer care
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Cautious narrative wording; no evidence grade or demonstration of a direct independent effect on taste is provided.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- France
AFSOS is the France-based Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support. France identifies the issuing body; Francophone does not mean France-only clinical applicability.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- Validated 15 December 2016; hosted March 2017
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 19, mouth-care recommendations
- Document notes
- Edition date follows the printed validation date; the hosting path is not used as the guideline edition.
peut limiter les troubles du goût
Source excerpt · PDF p. 19, mouth-care recommendationsStatement TASTE-AFSOS
-
-
Dysphagia
-
Document: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council Year: 2024Country: Russia Acute dysphagia prevention during lip-cancer RTRecommended / permittedRecommends low-intensity laser to prevent acute dysphagia and reduce parenteral-nutrition needs and opioid use during RT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute dysphagia prevention during lip-cancer RT
- Strength as reported
- C (Russian recommendation system)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 5 (Russian evidence system)
- Population / setting
- RT; acute dysphagia, parenteral nutrition and opioid-use frequency
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are outcomes listed by this guideline, not a quantified independent efficacy finding or a general dysphagia recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Russia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 national guideline; ID 553_2; review due by 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full-text guideline reproduction
- Location in source
- Rehabilitation during RT; reference 101
- Document notes
- Read from complete guideline reproduction. Bibliographic ID, year and issuing bodies verified. Grades are the Russian source's own system. The document also mentions intravenous laser blood irradiation; that distinct intervention is excluded from PBM rows.
для профилактики острой дисфагии
Source excerpt · Rehabilitation during RT; reference 101Statement LIP-RUSSIA-DYSPHAGIA
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Acute dysphagiaExpert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute dysphagia
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated acute dysphagia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.3.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Acute dysphagia
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.3.1Statement WALT22-DYSPHAGIA
-
-
Elbow tendinopathy / epicondylalgia
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Lateral or medial epicondylalgiaRecommendation againstLLLT is moderately not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Lateral or medial epicondylalgia
- Strength as reported
- Moderately Not Recommended, Evidence (B)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic lateral/medial epicondylalgia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Elbow Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 114
- Document notes
- Newer version used instead of the 2012 guideline quoted by insurer policies.
Low-level laser therapy is moderately not recommended for the treatment of acute, subacute, or chronic lateral or medial epicondylalgia.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 114Statement ELBOW-ACOEM
-
Document: APTA Academy of Hand and Upper Extremity / Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Year: 2022Country: United States Lateral elbow tendinopathyMay considerClinicians may use laser for pain and grip-strength improvement seen at follow-up beyond 4 weeks to 6 months. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Lateral elbow tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Lateral elbow tendinopathy; pain and grip strength; follow-up >4 weeks to 6 months
- Intervention
- LLLT / low-intensity laser and HILT evidence
- Qualification
- Follow-up interval is not a prescribed treatment-course length. Evidence includes low- and high-intensity laser.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Academy of Hand and Upper Extremity / Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 3 and 41; Interventions: Laser
- Document notes
- Evidence includes both low- and high-intensity laser therapy.
Clinicians may use laser therapy for improvements
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 3 and 41; Interventions: LaserStatement ELBOW-APTA
-
-
Fibromyalgia
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for fibromyalgia. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Fibromyalgia
- Strength as reported
- Moderately Not Recommended, Evidence (B)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Moderate
- Population / setting
- Fibromyalgia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Effective 22 December 2025; the URL's 2026 directory is not the edition year. Contrasts with the conditional positive 2025 Chinese guideline.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain
- Document
- Chronic Pain
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 22 December 2025; official California source path dated 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 290–291
- Document notes
- The current linked edition was retrieved; 2024 preliminary material was not counted separately.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for fibromyalgia.
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 290–291Statement FIBRO-ACOEM
-
Document: Chinese multidisciplinary fibromyalgia guideline development group (Li et al.) Year: 2025Country: China May considerThe guideline conditionally suggests LLLT over no intervention. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Fibromyalgia
- Strength as reported
- Conditional
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low certainty
- Population / setting
- Fibromyalgia; compared with no intervention
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Retains the panel's stated comparator. The supporting evidence discussion also includes placebo-controlled trials; other guidelines reach different conclusions.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese multidisciplinary fibromyalgia guideline development group (Li et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 1 and §3.2.4.3
- Document notes
- Recommendation is explicitly conditional with low certainty and compares with no intervention.
We suggest low‐level laser therapy to patients with fibromyalgia over no interventions
Source excerpt · Table 1 and §3.2.4.3Statement FIBRO-CHINA
-
Document: Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (TSPMR) Year: 2019Country: Türkiye Insufficient / conflicting evidenceThe guideline describes LLLT use as controversial. Its weak positive statement applies to a broader physical-modality group as part of treatment. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Fibromyalgia
- Strength as reported
- No standalone LLLT recommendation verified; physical-modality group weak positive as part of care
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Fibromyalgia; LLLT-specific evidence discussion
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The grouped weak recommendation is not transferred to LLLT alone. The section lists favorable small trials while other parts of the guideline note insufficient evidence for laser.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain
- Country / scope
- Türkiye
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (TSPMR). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 4 / printed p. 114, Physical therapy modalities and Low-level laser therapy
- Document notes
- The weak positive recommendation is for a group of physical/electrotherapeutic modalities as part of care; the LLLT-specific discussion remains controversial.
its use in FM is still controversial
Source excerpt · PDF p. 4 / printed p. 114, Physical therapy modalities and Low-level laser therapyStatement FIBRO-TSPMR
-
Document: German Pain Society (Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft) and multidisciplinary panel Year: 2017Country: Germany Fibromyalgia syndromeRecommendation againstHistoricalThe 2017 guideline says laser therapy should not be recommended, retaining the earlier negative position. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Fibromyalgia syndrome
- Strength as reported
- Negative recommendation; strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- EL3a (source system)
- Population / setting
- Fibromyalgia; physical modalities; historical guideline
- Intervention
- Lasertherapie; physical-modality context
- Qualification
- Expired historical edition. The strong consensus qualifier describes agreement, while EL3a is the source evidence category; neither is converted to GRADE.
- Specialty in collection
- Pain medicine
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: German Pain Society (Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft) and multidisciplinary panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2017 edition; official register copy marked expired
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Physical modalities / Lasertherapie, printed and PDF p. 78
- Document notes
- Laser therapy has a negative recommendation, EL3a and strong consensus. Strong consensus is not a strong positive recommendation. The historical expiry is explicit; this is not presented as a newly issued 2026 assessment.
Lasertherapie sollte nicht empfohlen werden.
Source excerpt · Physical modalities / Lasertherapie, printed and PDF p. 78Statement FIBRO-GERMANY-2017
-
-
Glossopharyngeal neuralgia
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2026Country: International Insufficient / conflicting evidenceInsufficient condition-specific clinical evidence prevents a WALT recommendation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Glossopharyngeal neuralgia
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation possible
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Condition-specific PBM use
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Neither absence of a recommendation nor a PBM position paper title constitutes an endorsement.
- Specialty in collection
- Orofacial pain / PBM position paper
- Document
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain—WALT Position Paper 2026
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.3.5
- Document notes
- Distinguishes BMS clinical practice guidance from expert consensus for trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia.
Glossopharyngeal
Source excerpt · Section 4.3.5Statement WALT26-GPN
-
-
Graft-versus-host disease
-
Document: MASCC/ISOO Year: 2024Country: International Oral chronic graft-versus-host diseaseInsufficient / conflicting evidenceThe practice statement notes early PBM evidence but says more research is needed. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral chronic graft-versus-host disease
- Strength as reported
- No formal PBM recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Oral chronic GVHD
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- PBM is mentioned alongside PUVA/UVB and platelet gel; these modalities are distinct and are not pooled here.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Document
- Clinical Practice Statement: Management of oral manifestations of chronic graft-versus-host-disease
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC/ISOO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 clinical practice statement
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Oral mucosal manifestations; topical interventions
- Document notes
- PBM is discussed as an emerging intervention with early evidence and a need for further research.
More research is needed about these interventions.
Source excerpt · Oral mucosal manifestations; topical interventionsStatement ORAL-GVHD-MASCC
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Graft-versus-host disease
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated graft-versus-host disease
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.11.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Graft-versus-Host
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.11.1Statement WALT22-GVHD
-
-
Hand osteoarthritis
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is moderately not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hand osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Moderately Not Recommended, Evidence (B)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Moderate
- Population / setting
- Hand osteoarthritis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 324
Low-level laser therapy is moderately not recommended for treatment of hand osteoarthrosis.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 324Statement HAND-OA-ACOEM
-
Document: Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología Year: 2010Country: Argentina No benefit in stated comparisonHistoricalThe summary states that ultrasound and laser have not demonstrated benefit in this hand-OA setting. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hand osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Narrative evidence statement; no separate laser grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Hand OA, first carpometacarpal joint; 2010 assessment
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; LLLT in cited evidence
- Qualification
- Historical evidence assessment, not a universal finding for every later laser device.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Guías Argentinas de Práctica Clínica para el Diagnóstico y el Tratamiento de la Osteoartritis
- Country / scope
- Argentina
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2010 edition; current validity not established
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 35 / printed p. 34, OA de manos
- Document notes
- Narrative physical-modality statements on knee and hand OA; separate laser recommendation grades were not verified.
Ultrasonido y Laserterapia no han demostrado beneficios
Source excerpt · PDF p. 35 / printed p. 34, OA de manosStatement OA-ARGENTINA-HAND
-
-
Healthy professional voice and vocal fatigue
-
Document: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil) Year: 2025Country: Brazil Expert protocol / consensusSeven experts reached content-validity consensus on PBM use in healthy voice professionals and vocal fatigue/recovery. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Healthy professional voice and vocal fatigue
- Strength as reported
- Expert content-validity consensus; CVC 1.00 for healthy voice / fatigue; 0.90 recovery
- Evidence certainty as reported
- No GRADE efficacy rating
- Population / setting
- Healthy voice professionals; fatigue, muscle performance and recovery
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Small expert Delphi consensus; CVC measures agreement/content validity, not clinical benefit, trial certainty or percentage of patients responding.
- Specialty in collection
- Voice / speech therapy
- Country / scope
- Brazil
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 Delphi consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, statements on healthy voice and items 11–13
- Document notes
- CVC values measure agreement/content validity among seven experts; they are not clinical efficacy or GRADE certainty ratings. Non-consensus indications are retained.
I use PBM with voice professionals to reduce symptoms of vocal fatigue.
Source excerpt · Table 2, statements on healthy voice and items 11–13Statement VOICE-HEALTHY-CONSENSUS
-
-
Hip osteoarthritis
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2026Country: United States Hip osteoarthritis and other hip painInsufficient / conflicting evidenceNo recommendation for or against LLLT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hip osteoarthritis and other hip pain
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Hip osteoarthritis or acute, subacute or chronic hip pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Hip and Groin Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 29 January 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 144
There is no recommendation for or against the use of low-level laser therapy for treatment of osteoarthrosis or acute, subacute, or chronic hip pain.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 144Statement HIP-ACOEM
-
-
Hypersensitivity in molar-incisor hypomineralisation
-
Document: European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) Year: 2021Country: Europe May considerTable 10 conditionally permits a group including laser to reduce hypersensitivity. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hypersensitivity in molar-incisor hypomineralisation
- Strength as reported
- Conditional; grouped interventions
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low; grouped GRADE assessment
- Population / setting
- MIH-affected teeth; group includes topical agents, ozone and laser
- Intervention
- LLLT in narrative; laser in grouped table
- Qualification
- The conditional/low grades belong to the group. The narrative says evidence cannot support specific interventions because of bias, short follow-up and small samples; a laser-only recommendation is not inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 update; online 2021; journal volume 2022
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 10; PDF p. 14; narrative p. 13
- Document notes
- Table 10 conditionally allows a group including laser for hypersensitivity, with low certainty. The narrative is more cautious; neither wording is converted into a laser-only recommendation.
- Source issue
Table 10 conditionally permits a group including laser with low certainty, while the narrative emphasizes limitations and says no individual intervention can be recommended from the reviewed studies.
The table is reported with its conditional/low group grading; the more cautious narrative is preserved on the row. No laser-only grade or efficacy estimate is inferred.
ozone/laser can be used to reduce the symptoms of hypersensitivity
Source excerpt · Table 10; PDF p. 14; narrative p. 13Statement MIH-EAPD
-
-
Immunotherapy-associated oral lichenoid lesions
-
Document: MASCC/ISOO Year: 2025Country: International Immunotherapy-associated oral lichenoid lesions: acute painExpert protocol / consensusPBM may help acute pain; the statement advises a protocol assessed in randomized trials and explains that use is extrapolated from other oral conditions. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Immunotherapy-associated oral lichenoid lesions: acute pain
- Strength as reported
- Clinical practice statement; no formal PBM-specific grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- No direct efficacy evidence for oral irAEs; extrapolated
- Population / setting
- Acute pain with oral lichen planus / oral lichenoid reaction during immunotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Box 1 explicitly states that efficacy evidence for these interventions in oral immune-related adverse events is absent; this is not direct trial evidence for oral irAEs.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC/ISOO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 clinical practice statement
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Oral lichen planus / lichenoid reactions; Box 1
- Document notes
- The statement explicitly notes that efficacy evidence for listed nonpharmacologic treatments in oral irAEs is absent and use is extrapolated from other settings.
photobiomodulation (PBM) may help with pain management at the acute phase
Source excerpt · Oral lichen planus / lichenoid reactions; Box 1Statement ORAL-IRAE-MASCC
-
-
Knee osteoarthritis
-
Document: Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE), Ministry of Health Singapore Year: 2026Country: Singapore Knee osteoarthritis: electrotherapy comparisonMention onlyThe guideline cautions that a group including laser may be less effective than conventional therapies such as exercise for pain and function. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis: electrotherapy comparison
- Strength as reported
- No PBM-only graded recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Electrotherapy group including unspecified laser; compared with exercise/conventional therapies
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; type unspecified, within electrotherapy group
- Qualification
- Grouped, cautious comparison; not a verified laser-only recommendation against or a finding that every PBM protocol lacks benefit.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Singapore
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE), Ministry of Health Singapore. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- ACE Clinical Guideline; updated 29 July 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- After Recommendation 6; Notepad: Other complementary and alternative treatments
- Document notes
- Contains a grouped caution about electrotherapies including unspecified laser. A PBM-only graded recommendation is not established.
laser therapy may be less effective than conventional therapies like exercise
Source excerpt · After Recommendation 6; Notepad: Other complementary and alternative treatmentsStatement OA-SINGAPORE-2026
-
Document: German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) and multidisciplinary panel Year: 2024Country: Germany Recommendation againstStrongly advises against a group including laser because evidence of benefit is insufficient; the recommendation adopts NICE NG226. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Strong against (⇓⇓); grouped recommendation; 89% consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- People with knee OA; group of electrotherapeutic interventions
- Intervention
- Lasertherapie; device class unspecified, within grouped electrotherapies
- Qualification
- The 89% figure is panel agreement. Very-low-certainty excerpts displayed for NMES/ultrasound are not a laser-only grade. Do not count adoption as an independent evidence vote.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) and multidisciplinary panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 5.0, dated 12 July 2024; register valid to July 2029; PDF path dated May 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 39, printed p. 22 and pp. 155–158
- Document notes
- Recommendation 39 strongly advises against a group including laser, adopting NICE NG226 recommendation 1.3.9. The displayed very-low-certainty GRADE excerpts concern NMES/ultrasound, not a verified laser-specific certainty grade. Laser class is unspecified in the recommendation table.
- Source issue
Recommendation 39 adopts NICE NG226 1.3.9. Its table displays selected GRADE outcomes for NMES/ultrasound rather than a verified laser-only certainty grade.
Record the strong grouped recommendation against and 89% panel consensus, leave laser-specific certainty blank, and identify the adopted recommendation lineage.
Lasertherapie
Source excerpt · Recommendation 39, printed p. 22 and pp. 155–158Statement OA-GERMANY-2024
-
Document: AAOS Year: 2021Country: United States May considerFDA-approved laser treatment may be used to improve pain and function. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Limited (downgraded)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee osteoarthritis; pain and function; FDA-approved laser treatment as worded by source
- Intervention
- Laser treatment (source terminology)
- Qualification
- This does not endorse all LED devices or all red-light treatments. APTA's resource listing is the same AAOS guideline.
- Specialty in collection
- Orthopedics
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: AAOS. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 third edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 9 and 43; Laser treatment
- Document notes
- APTA lists this AAOS guideline in its CPG resources. That listing is not counted as a separate APTA guideline.
FDA-approved laser treatment may be used
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 9 and 43; Laser treatmentStatement KNEE-AAOS
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2019Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for knee osteoarthritis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Evidence (C)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee osteoarthritis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Shares one body recommendation with general knee pain; these rows are not independent recommendations.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Knee Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 3 December 2019; California source path dated 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary table PDF p. 9; body p. 91
The use of low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of osteoarthrosis and acute, subacute, or chronic knee pain.
Source excerpt · Summary table PDF p. 9; body p. 91Statement KNEE-OA-ACOEM
-
Document: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Year: 2019Country: International Knee osteoarthritis with GI/CV comorbidity or frailtyInsufficient / conflicting evidenceLaser is placed at Level 3 with 40–59% voting in favor. This is below the guideline's recommended-treatment tiers 1A, 1B and 2. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis with GI/CV comorbidity or frailty
- Strength as reported
- Level 3; conditional; 40–59% in favor
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee OA with gastrointestinal or cardiovascular comorbidity, or frailty
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; class unspecified in recommendation table
- Qualification
- Table labels the level Conditional; no clear positive consensus is inferred. GI and CV share a merged cell; frailty is a separate adjacent cell.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text and official supplements
- Location in source
- Official Supplementary Table 5; Level 3; GI/CV merged column and Frailty column
- Document notes
- Official Supplementary Table 5 differentiates knee-OA subgroups; Table 8 strongly advises against laser for hip/polyarticular OA and against laser acupuncture. Level 3 has 40–59% in favor and is not treated as positive consensus. The recommendation tables do not specify a low-level-only device class.
- Source issue
The main article does not show all intervention ratings. Official Supplementary Tables 5 and 8 distinguish knee subgroups, hip/polyarticular laser therapy and laser acupuncture. Table 5 merges GI/CV columns; laser also appears at Level 3 for frailty.
The original DOCX table cells, merged columns and vote rubric were read directly. Level 3 (40–59% in favor) is not classified as a positive consensus. No blanket strong-against recommendation is assigned to every knee-OA subgroup.
Level 3- 40%-59%
Source excerpt · Official Supplementary Table 5; Level 3; GI/CV merged column and Frailty columnStatement OA-OARSI-KNEE-COMORB
-
Document: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Year: 2019Country: International Knee osteoarthritis without comorbiditiesRecommendation againstThe official supplement places laser therapy in conditional-against Level 4B for this subgroup. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis without comorbidities
- Strength as reported
- Level 4B; conditional; 60–74% against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee OA without the specified comorbidities
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; class unspecified in recommendation table
- Qualification
- Laser class is unspecified in the table. This subgroup must not be conflated with the Level 3 comorbidity groups or hip/polyarticular OA.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text and official supplements
- Location in source
- Official Supplementary Table 5; Level 4B / No Comorbidities
- Document notes
- Official Supplementary Table 5 differentiates knee-OA subgroups; Table 8 strongly advises against laser for hip/polyarticular OA and against laser acupuncture. Level 3 has 40–59% in favor and is not treated as positive consensus. The recommendation tables do not specify a low-level-only device class.
- Source issue
The main article does not show all intervention ratings. Official Supplementary Tables 5 and 8 distinguish knee subgroups, hip/polyarticular laser therapy and laser acupuncture. Table 5 merges GI/CV columns; laser also appears at Level 3 for frailty.
The original DOCX table cells, merged columns and vote rubric were read directly. Level 3 (40–59% in favor) is not classified as a positive consensus. No blanket strong-against recommendation is assigned to every knee-OA subgroup.
Level 4B
Source excerpt · Official Supplementary Table 5; Level 4B / No ComorbiditiesStatement OA-OARSI-KNEE-NOCOMORB
-
Document: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Year: 2019Country: International Knee osteoarthritis with widespread pain/depressionRecommendation againstLaser is listed in the conditional-against Level 4A subgroup. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis with widespread pain/depression
- Strength as reported
- Level 4A; conditional; ≥75% against and >50% conditional
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee OA with widespread pain and/or depression
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; class unspecified in recommendation table
- Qualification
- The row differs from the recommendations for other knee-OA comorbidity groups. Device class is not specified.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text and official supplements
- Location in source
- Official Supplementary Table 5; Level 4A / Widespread pain–Depression
- Document notes
- Official Supplementary Table 5 differentiates knee-OA subgroups; Table 8 strongly advises against laser for hip/polyarticular OA and against laser acupuncture. Level 3 has 40–59% in favor and is not treated as positive consensus. The recommendation tables do not specify a low-level-only device class.
- Source issue
The main article does not show all intervention ratings. Official Supplementary Tables 5 and 8 distinguish knee subgroups, hip/polyarticular laser therapy and laser acupuncture. Table 5 merges GI/CV columns; laser also appears at Level 3 for frailty.
The original DOCX table cells, merged columns and vote rubric were read directly. Level 3 (40–59% in favor) is not classified as a positive consensus. No blanket strong-against recommendation is assigned to every knee-OA subgroup.
Level 4A-
Source excerpt · Official Supplementary Table 5; Level 4A / Widespread pain–DepressionStatement OA-OARSI-KNEE-WIDESPREAD
-
Document: Society for Translational Medicine expert panel Year: 2019Country: International May considerLabels PBMT/LLLT as limitedly recommended while describing mixed clinical evidence and the need for better trials. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Limitedly recommended; qualitative consensus label
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Symptomatic knee OA; clinical rationale mainly concerns knee OA
- Intervention
- PBMT / LLLT; nonthermal visible and infrared light
- Qualification
- The heading and cautious rationale must be read together. Experimental cartilage findings are not human clinical efficacy or a formal certainty grade.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- International
STM describes itself as a global non-profit organization established in Hong Kong. The society scope is used rather than the location of its headquarters or a corresponding author.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- December 2019 issue; publisher page created January 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Treatment / PBMT or low-level laser therapy (LLLT)
- Document notes
- PBMT section is headed limitedly recommended, but its rationale also reports conflicting clinical evidence and calls for better trials. Publisher citation dates and issue identify 2019 despite 2020 page-creation/BibTeX metadata.
- Source issue
The PBMT heading says limitedly recommended; its rationale also cites a meta-analysis not supporting effectiveness and requests better trials.
Qualitative conditional support follows the heading, with the conflicting rationale explicitly retained; no numeric strength or certainty grade is invented.
PBMT or low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (limitedly recommended)
Source excerpt · Treatment / PBMT or low-level laser therapy (LLLT)Statement OA-STM-2019
-
Document: Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) Year: 2014Country: Mexico Knee osteoarthritis: attributed Australian laser recommendationMention onlyThe IMSS guideline reproduces the Australian grade-D short-term statement and summarizes conflicting evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis: attributed Australian laser recommendation
- Strength as reported
- D / Shekelle, attributed to RACGP 2009
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Ia / Shekelle evidence entries; mixed findings
- Population / setting
- Short-term low-power laser; recommendation attributed to Australian 2009 guidance
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Grade D is explicitly attributed to the 2009 Australian source. It is not the current RACGP position or independent corroborating trial evidence.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- Mexico
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- IMSS-726-14; published 25 September 2014
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Printed pp. 29–30, LASER
- Document notes
- Laser section summarizes mixed evidence and attributes the short-term grade-D statement to the Australian 2009 guideline. That attribution is retained; not presented as an independent evidence vote.
Las Guías Australianas recomiendan
Source excerpt · Printed pp. 29–30, LASERStatement OA-IMSS-LASER
-
Document: Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología Year: 2010Country: Argentina Knee osteoarthritis: pain and functionNo benefit in stated comparisonHistoricalThe 2010 summary states that laser therapy does not improve the pain/function parameters discussed. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis: pain and function
- Strength as reported
- Narrative evidence statement; no separate laser grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee OA; assessment in the 2010 guideline
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; LLLT in cited evidence
- Qualification
- Historical statement; the summary does not specify a single laser protocol or precise follow-up interval.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Guías Argentinas de Práctica Clínica para el Diagnóstico y el Tratamiento de la Osteoartritis
- Country / scope
- Argentina
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2010 edition; current validity not established
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 35 / printed p. 34, Physical modalities summary
- Document notes
- Narrative physical-modality statements on knee and hand OA; separate laser recommendation grades were not verified.
Laserterapia, Magnetoterapia y Electroestimulación no mejoran estos parámetros
Source excerpt · PDF p. 35 / printed p. 34, Physical modalities summaryStatement OA-ARGENTINA-KNEE
-
Document: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) Year: 2009Country: Australia Knee osteoarthritis: historical short-term laser optionMay considerHistoricalThe 2009 guideline weakly supports GPs recommending short-term LLLT for knee OA. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee osteoarthritis: historical short-term laser option
- Strength as reported
- D; weak evidence
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Short-term treatment of knee OA in the 2009 edition
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Superseded by RACGP 2018, which recommends against LLLT and is already included. Historical support is not current endorsement.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Australia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2009 edition; superseded by 2018 second edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 18; PDF pp. 19 and 34 / printed pp. 17 and 32
- Document notes
- Weak positive grade D in 2009 contrasts with the later 2018 recommendation against already in the collection. The historical recommendation must not be presented as the current RACGP position.
weak evidence to support GPs recommending low level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Recommendation 18; PDF pp. 19 and 34 / printed pp. 17 and 32Statement OA-RACGP-2009
-
-
Knee pain
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2019Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for knee pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee pain
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Evidence (C)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic knee pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Knee Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 3 December 2019; California source path dated 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary table PDF p. 9; body p. 91
The use of low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of osteoarthrosis and acute, subacute, or chronic knee pain.
Source excerpt · Summary table PDF p. 9; body p. 91Statement KNEE-PAIN-ACOEM
-
-
Knee sprains and cruciate ligament tears
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2019Country: United States Insufficient / conflicting evidenceNo recommendation for or against a group of modalities including LLLT because of insufficient evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee sprains and cruciate ligament tears
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I); grouped
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Knee sprains; ACL / PCL tears; menu of interventions including LLLT
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Group-level recommendation; laser-specific efficacy is not established.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Knee Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 3 December 2019; California source path dated 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 133, 139–140
iontophoresis, low-level laser therapy, phonophoresis
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 133, 139–140Statement KNEE-LIGAMENT-ACOEM
-
-
Low back pain
-
Document: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Year: 2022Country: United States Chronic low back pain: nonopioid treatment optionsRecommended / permittedNames LLLT among appropriate noninvasive options clinicians should recommend for chronic low-back pain under the broader nonopioid-care recommendation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic low back pain: nonopioid treatment options
- Strength as reported
- Named implementation option; no separate LLLT grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adults with chronic low-back pain; individualized choice of appropriate noninvasive nonpharmacologic therapy
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Category A and evidence type 2 belong to the broad Recommendation 2, not an isolated PBM efficacy rating. This passage concerns low-back pain, not every chronic pain condition.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 2 / Implementation Considerations / condition-specific nonpharmacologic approaches
- Document notes
- Recommendation 2 implementation considerations name LLLT as a condition-specific noninvasive option for low-back pain. Category A / evidence type 2 grades the broader nonopioid recommendation, not LLLT alone. A named implementation option is recorded separately from an independently graded PBM recommendation.
- Source issue
Recommendation 2 Category A / evidence type 2 applies to broad nonopioid management. LLLT is a named implementation option for low-back pain, not an individually graded intervention.
Retain the named positive option, with no separate LLLT grade and no transfer of the broad recommendation grade to PBM efficacy.
psychological therapy, spinal manipulation, low-level laser therapy, massage
Source excerpt · Recommendation 2 / Implementation Considerations / condition-specific nonpharmacologic approachesStatement LBP-CDC-2022
-
Document: US Department of Veterans Affairs / Department of Defense Year: 2022Country: United States Insufficient / conflicting evidenceEvidence is insufficient to recommend for or against laser therapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Neither for nor against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient evidence
- Population / setting
- Low back pain; laser grouped with cupping, TENS and ultrasound
- Intervention
- Laser therapy (source terminology)
- Qualification
- Do not classify this as a recommendation to use laser.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: US Department of Veterans Affairs / Department of Defense. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 17; PDF pp. 24 and 47
insufficient evidence to recommend for or against cupping
Source excerpt · Recommendation 17; PDF pp. 24 and 47Statement LBP-VA
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2020Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for treatment of low back pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Evidence (C)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Moderate
- Population / setting
- Low back pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Guideline effective 13 February 2020; the URL's 2021 directory is not the edition year.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Low Back Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 13 February 2020; California source path dated 2021
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Low-level Laser Therapy for Treatment of Low Back Pain
- Document notes
- The complete guideline and 2020 JOEM summary represent the same recommendation family; counted once.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of low back pain.
Source excerpt · Low-level Laser Therapy for Treatment of Low Back PainStatement LBP-ACOEM
-
Document: North American Spine Society Year: 2020Country: North America Chronic low back pain: laser acupunctureNo benefit in stated comparisonLaser acupuncture provides no short- or medium-term benefit over sham. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic low back pain: laser acupuncture
- Strength as reported
- A
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser acupuncture versus sham; short- and medium-term outcomes
- Intervention
- Laser acupuncture
- Qualification
- Laser acupuncture is a distinct delivery approach from tissue-directed laser therapy.
- Specialty in collection
- Spine care
- Country / scope
- North America
The issuing body is the North American Spine Society. Its named regional remit is shown rather than assigning all guidance to its US headquarters.
- Edition / status
- 2020 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary and Physical medicine section
- Document notes
- Combines low- and high-level laser evidence in several recommendations; laser acupuncture is evaluated separately.
Laser acupuncture provides no short-term or medium-term benefit
Source excerpt · Summary and Physical medicine sectionStatement LBP-NASS-ACUP
-
Document: North American Spine Society Year: 2020Country: North America Low back pain: laser alone versus exerciseNo benefit in stated comparisonSuggests no short-term benefit of laser compared with exercise alone. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Low back pain: laser alone versus exercise
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Low- or high-level laser alone versus exercise; short-term
- Intervention
- Low-level or high-level laser
- Qualification
- Different comparison from laser plus exercise; preserve both statements.
- Specialty in collection
- Spine care
- Country / scope
- North America
The issuing body is the North American Spine Society. Its named regional remit is shown rather than assigning all guidance to its US headquarters.
- Edition / status
- 2020 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary and Physical medicine section
- Document notes
- Combines low- and high-level laser evidence in several recommendations; laser acupuncture is evaluated separately.
there is no short-term benefit of laser therapy
Source excerpt · Summary and Physical medicine sectionStatement LBP-NASS-ALONE
-
Document: North American Spine Society Year: 2020Country: North America Low back pain: laser plus exercise, functionInsufficient / conflicting evidenceEvidence conflicts on whether the combination improves short-term function. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Low back pain: laser plus exercise, function
- Strength as reported
- I (conflicting evidence)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser plus exercise versus either alone; short-term function
- Intervention
- Low-level or high-level laser with exercise
- Qualification
- NASS grade I means insufficient/conflicting evidence, not top-tier evidence level I.
- Specialty in collection
- Spine care
- Country / scope
- North America
The issuing body is the North American Spine Society. Its named regional remit is shown rather than assigning all guidance to its US headquarters.
- Edition / status
- 2020 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary and Physical medicine section
- Document notes
- Combines low- and high-level laser evidence in several recommendations; laser acupuncture is evaluated separately.
There is conflicting evidence that the combination of laser therapy
Source excerpt · Summary and Physical medicine sectionStatement LBP-NASS-FUNCTION
-
Document: North American Spine Society Year: 2020Country: North America Low back pain: laser plus exercise, painMay considerSuggests laser plus exercise provides better short-term pain relief than either alone. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Low back pain: laser plus exercise, pain
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser (low- or high-level) plus exercise versus either alone; short-term pain
- Intervention
- Low-level or high-level laser with exercise
- Qualification
- The recommendation combines low- and high-level lasers and concerns pain, not automatically function.
- Specialty in collection
- Spine care
- Country / scope
- North America
The issuing body is the North American Spine Society. Its named regional remit is shown rather than assigning all guidance to its US headquarters.
- Edition / status
- 2020 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary and Physical medicine section; laser therapy recommendations
- Document notes
- Combines low- and high-level laser evidence in several recommendations; laser acupuncture is evaluated separately.
the combination of laser therapy (low-level or high level)
Source excerpt · Summary and Physical medicine section; laser therapy recommendationsStatement LBP-NASS-PAIN
-
Document: Austrian national evidence- and consensus-based low-back guideline panel / federal health ministry Year: 2018Country: Austria Chronic nonspecific low back pain: trigger-point emphasisMay considerThe short-version table gives laser a positive recommendation in the chronic column, especially for trigger points. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic nonspecific low back pain: trigger-point emphasis
- Strength as reported
- Single upward arrow (positive recommendation)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Chronic nonspecific low back pain; especially treatment of trigger points
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; device class unspecified
- Qualification
- The short version does not specify low-level versus high-intensity laser. Not generalized to acute or subacute pain.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Austria
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Austrian national evidence- and consensus-based low-back guideline panel / federal health ministry. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2018 short version
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full guideline, short version
- Location in source
- PDF p. 12, chronic column, footnote 15; table visually verified
- Document notes
- Chronic-column recommendation and footnote 15 visually checked in PDF p. 12. The short version calls the intervention laser therapy without specifying device class.
Lasertherapie
Source excerpt · PDF p. 12, chronic column, footnote 15; table visually verifiedStatement LBP-AUSTRIA
-
Document: American College of Physicians Year: 2017Country: United States Chronic low back painRecommended / permittedAbstract onlyIncludes LLLT among initial nonpharmacological treatment choices. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Strong recommendation for initial nonpharmacological options
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low-quality evidence for LLLT
- Population / setting
- Chronic low back pain; initial nonpharmacological management
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The recommendation for a menu of nonpharmacological options is strong; the evidence for LLLT is low quality. It does not require all patients to receive laser.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Physicians. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Recommendation 2
- Document notes
- The abstract contains the full recommendation 2 and its stated strength.
low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Abstract, Recommendation 2Statement LBP-ACP
-
Document: German National Disease Management Guideline programme (BÄK / KBV / AWMF) Year: 2017Country: Germany Nonspecific low back painRecommendation againstHistoricalRecommends against laser therapy for nonspecific low back pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Nonspecific low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Strong against (double downward arrow)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Historical 2017 wording; current validity is not established by this collection.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: German National Disease Management Guideline programme (BÄK / KBV / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2017 edition; current validity not established
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 5-14; PDF p. 45 / printed p. 44
- Document notes
- Record retains the 2017 wording; does not claim this is an active 2026 guideline.
Lasertherapie soll zur Behandlung nicht-spezifischer
Source excerpt · Recommendation 5-14; PDF p. 45 / printed p. 44Statement LBP-GERMAN-NVL
-
Document: Ministerio de Salud Pública del Ecuador Year: 2016Country: Ecuador Subacute or chronic low back pain: laser mentionMention onlyThe guideline describes low evidence for electrotherapies including laser and leaves their use to specialist judgment. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Subacute or chronic low back pain: laser mention
- Strength as reported
- Specialist discretion; grouped evidence statement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low evidence in narrative; E-1a source notation
- Population / setting
- Electrotherapy group including laser; specialist discretion
- Intervention
- Laser unspecified, within electrotherapy group
- Qualification
- Laser class is unspecified and the glossary describes heat generation. A nonthermal PBM-specific positive recommendation is not verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Ecuador
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Ministerio de Salud Pública del Ecuador. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Cover dated 2016; hosted January/February 2017
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 28 / printed p. 26, Electroterapia
- Document notes
- Bibliographic imprint cites 2015 while the cover says 2016. Laser class is unspecified and the glossary describes heat generation; a PBM-specific recommendation is not inferred.
quedando a criterio del especialista
Source excerpt · PDF p. 28 / printed p. 26, ElectroterapiaStatement LBP-ECUADOR-2016
-
Document: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta Year: 2015Country: Canada Acute/subacute low back painInsufficient / conflicting evidenceLists LLLT among interventions with insufficient evidence to recommend for or against. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute/subacute low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Insufficient evidence for or against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- RCT (G1) + SR (IHE database); evidence-source labels
- Population / setting
- Acute/subacute nonspecific low back pain in primary care
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy; glossary defines 632–904 nm
- Qualification
- Third edition 2015, minor revision 2017. The SR/RCT/EO entries identify source types and are not certainty grades.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain, 3rd edition (minor revision 2017)
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- December 2015 third edition; minor revision 2017; later-version validity not established
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 11
- Document notes
- The source itself lists revised 2015 third edition and minor revision 2017. LLLT remains in the insufficient-evidence list; SR/RCT labels identify evidence sources, not a certainty grade. Do not relabel it a 2019 or 2026 recommendation.
Low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 11Statement LBP-ALBERTA-2015-ACUTE
-
Document: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta Year: 2015Country: Canada Chronic low back painInsufficient / conflicting evidenceLists LLLT among interventions with insufficient evidence to recommend for or against. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Insufficient evidence for or against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- SR (IHE Database); evidence-source label
- Population / setting
- Chronic nonspecific low back pain in primary care
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy; glossary defines 632–904 nm
- Qualification
- Third edition 2015, minor revision 2017. The SR/RCT/EO entries identify source types and are not certainty grades.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain, 3rd edition (minor revision 2017)
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- December 2015 third edition; minor revision 2017; later-version validity not established
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 20
- Document notes
- The source itself lists revised 2015 third edition and minor revision 2017. LLLT remains in the insufficient-evidence list; SR/RCT labels identify evidence sources, not a certainty grade. Do not relabel it a 2019 or 2026 recommendation.
Low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 20Statement LBP-ALBERTA-2015-CHRONIC
-
Document: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Year: 2013Country: United Kingdom (Scotland) Chronic low back painMay considerHistoricalLLLT should be considered as a treatment option for chronic low back pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic low back pain
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Chronic low back pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The retrieved text is the December 2013 edition; a 2019 date from a review was not adopted.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / chronic pain
- Country / scope
- United Kingdom (Scotland)
SIGN is the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Scotland is retained within the United Kingdom label.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2013 text retrieved; not relabelled as 2019
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 7, PDF p. 34 / printed p. 28
- Document notes
- The retrieved official PDF explicitly cites December 2013 throughout. A secondary review's 2019 date was not transferred to this source.
- Source issue
Retrieved SIGN 136 PDF is dated December 2013; a secondary review describes SIGN as 2019.
The actual retrieved source is dated 2013 and marked historical; no 2019 edition is invented.
Low level laser therapy should be considered
Source excerpt · Section 7, PDF p. 34 / printed p. 28Statement LBP-SIGN
-
Document: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta Year: 2011Country: Canada Acute/subacute low back painInsufficient / conflicting evidenceHistoricalLists LLLT among interventions with insufficient evidence to recommend for or against. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute/subacute low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Insufficient evidence for or against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- RCT (G1) + SR (IHE database); evidence-source labels
- Population / setting
- Acute/subacute nonspecific low back pain in primary care
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy; glossary defines 632–904 nm
- Qualification
- Historical second edition, superseded by the third edition. The SR/RCT/EO entries identify source types and are not certainty grades.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2011 second edition; superseded by third edition 2015/revision 2017
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 14
- Document notes
- Hosted filename Oct19 does not indicate a 2019 guideline. The document itself identifies Low Back Pain, 2011. CFPC is the host, not the issuing guideline panel. This historical edition is separate from the third edition and is not an independent evidence vote.
- Source issue
The CFPC-hosted file is named Oct19 but internally identifies the 2011 second edition of the Alberta TOP guideline.
Dated 2011 and marked superseded, with TOP as issuing body. The separately retrieved third edition is dated 2015 with minor revision 2017.
low-level laser therapy*
Source excerpt · Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 14Statement LBP-ALBERTA-2011-ACUTE
-
Document: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta Year: 2011Country: Canada Chronic low back painInsufficient / conflicting evidenceHistoricalLists LLLT among interventions with insufficient evidence to recommend for or against. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic low back pain
- Strength as reported
- Insufficient evidence for or against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- EO (GDG); evidence-source label
- Population / setting
- Chronic nonspecific low back pain in primary care
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy; glossary defines 632–904 nm
- Qualification
- Historical second edition, superseded by the third edition. The SR/RCT/EO entries identify source types and are not certainty grades.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Toward Optimized Practice (TOP), Alberta. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2011 second edition; superseded by third edition 2015/revision 2017
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 21
- Document notes
- Hosted filename Oct19 does not indicate a 2019 guideline. The document itself identifies Low Back Pain, 2011. CFPC is the host, not the issuing guideline panel. This historical edition is separate from the third edition and is not an independent evidence vote.
- Source issue
The CFPC-hosted file is named Oct19 but internally identifies the 2011 second edition of the Alberta TOP guideline.
Dated 2011 and marked superseded, with TOP as issuing body. The separately retrieved third edition is dated 2015 with minor revision 2017.
low-level laser therapy*
Source excerpt · Additional options / insufficient-evidence list, PDF and printed p. 21Statement LBP-ALBERTA-2011-CHRONIC
-
-
Lymphedema
-
Document: International Society of Lymphology Year: 2023Country: International Peripheral lymphedemaSupportive evidence statementDescribes limited evidence supporting low-level laser, with more robust changes in pain and tissue mobility than in limb volume. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Peripheral lymphedema
- Strength as reported
- Narrative consensus; no formal recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Limited scientific evidence
- Population / setting
- Lymphedema; pain and tissue mobility more than pure volume reduction
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Descriptive consensus text; not a strong graded endorsement.
- Specialty in collection
- Lymphology
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International Society of Lymphology. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 revision; newer than slide's 2020 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 12; nonoperative treatment, Low level laser
There is some limit
Source excerpt · PDF p. 12; nonoperative treatment, Low level laserStatement LYMPH-ISL-2023
-
Document: Health Service Executive Ireland / Lymphoedema Network Northern Ireland / Public Health Agency NI Year: 2022Country: Ireland & Northern Ireland Lymphoedema: laser use and treatment sequencingMay considerRecognizes support for laser use but says conventional treatments such as CDT should be considered first because laser takes time and incurs costs. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Lymphoedema: laser use and treatment sequencing
- Strength as reported
- Strong recommendation for conventional treatment first
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Evidence Grade C (source system; not GRADE)
- Population / setting
- Lymphoedema; evidence discussion primarily concerns breast-cancer-related upper-limb lymphoedema
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy / photobiomodulation
- Qualification
- Strong grades the treatment-priority recommendation, not a strong claim of superior laser efficacy. The separately cited SIO C grade is not the same grading system. Narrative safety wording is not generalized to all cancer settings.
- Specialty in collection
- Lymphology
- Document
- All-Ireland Lymphoedema Guidelines 2022 for the Diagnosis, Assessment and Management of Lymphoedema
- Country / scope
- Ireland & Northern Ireland
The All-Ireland guideline is jointly issued by HSE Ireland and Northern Ireland bodies. Its scope spans Ireland and Northern Ireland, rather than a single country.
- Edition / status
- V1/2022; publication September 2022; review due June 2027
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- GQ92.1, printed and PDF p. 119
- Document notes
- GQ92.1 describes support for safe laser use but strongly prioritizes conventional treatments such as CDT because of time and cost. Own evidence grade C and strong recommendation must not be confused with a strong laser-efficacy endorsement or the separately cited SIO C-grade recommendation.
- Source issue
GQ92.1 has own Evidence Grade C / Strong, but the recommendation prioritizes conventional treatments due to time and cost. The preceding paragraph separately cites SIO C-grade laser support.
Strong is tied to conventional-treatment priority, not strong laser superiority. Own evidence grade and the external SIO strength label are not conflated.
conventional treatments (e.g. CDT) for lymphoedema
Source excerpt · GQ92.1, printed and PDF p. 119Statement LYMPH-IRELAND-2022
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Lymphedema
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated lymphedema
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.5.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Lymphedema
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.5.1Statement WALT22-LYMPH
-
Document: Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy of APTA Year: 2020Country: United States Established breast cancer-related upper-extremity lymphedemaMay considerLLLT may be considered in combination with compression or CDT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Established breast cancer-related upper-extremity lymphedema
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Established upper-extremity lymphedema; adjunct to compression or complete decongestive therapy (CDT)
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The text does not recommend LLLT as standalone therapy.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncologic rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy of APTA. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2020 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 1 and Low-level laser therapy section
Low-level laser therapy may be considered
Source excerpt · Table 1 and Low-level laser therapy sectionStatement LYMPH-APTA
-
Document: International Society of Lymphology Year: 2020Country: International Peripheral lymphedema: historical consensusSupportive evidence statementHistoricalDescribes benefits reported in small studies, especially pain and tissue mobility rather than pure volume reduction. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Peripheral lymphedema: historical consensus
- Strength as reported
- Narrative consensus; no formal recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Lymphedema; small studies and limited meta-analysis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Historical version; the 2023 ISL consensus is available.
- Specialty in collection
- Lymphology
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International Society of Lymphology. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical; updated by ISL 2023
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 11, Low level laser
Reports with small numbers
Source excerpt · PDF p. 11, Low level laserStatement LYMPH-ISL-2020
-
Document: Society for Integrative Oncology; ASCO endorsement Year: 2018Country: United States Breast cancer-related lymphedemaMay considerThe ASCO-endorsed SIO guideline states that low-level laser may be considered for improving lymphedema. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Breast cancer-related lymphedema
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- During and after breast cancer treatment; lymphedema
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- One recommendation family: SIO 2017 with ASCO endorsement 2018. No claim of a strong recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncologic rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Society for Integrative Oncology; ASCO endorsement. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2018 ASCO endorsement of SIO 2017
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Lymphedema recommendation
- Document notes
- The endorsement and the SIO 2017 source are represented as one recommendation family; not independent patient evidence.
Low-level laser therapy, manual lymphatic drainage, and compression bandaging can be considered
Source excerpt · Lymphedema recommendationStatement LYMPH-SIO-ASCO
-
Document: CEFyL / SERMEF (Spain) Year: 2017Country: Spain Breast-cancer-related lymphedemaMention onlyThe guideline discusses laser studies, possible volume and tissue effects, and the need for further efficacy, safety and dose research; no formal laser recommendation grade was verified. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Breast-cancer-related lymphedema
- Strength as reported
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser section on lymphedema; narrative evidence discussion
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Citation mismatch: reference 137, used in the laser discussion, is a trial of low-frequency low-intensity electrotherapy, not LLLT. Its pain / quality-of-life findings are not treated as PBM evidence here.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / lymphology
- Country / scope
- Spain
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: CEFyL / SERMEF (Spain). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 second edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Printed pp. 88–89; references p. 95
- Document notes
- Narrative laser section contains a citation to a low-frequency electrotherapy trial. That trial's modality was checked against its abstract and the mismatch is flagged.
- Source issue
Reference 137 used in the laser discussion is the Belmonte 2012 trial of low-frequency low-intensity electrotherapy (PMID 22172923), not LLLT.
Classified as mention only. Findings from the mismatched trial are not presented as PBM evidence.
se precisan más estudios para precisar mejor su efectividad
Source excerpt · Printed pp. 88–89; references p. 95Statement LYMPH-SPAIN
-
Document: Dutch Society for Dermatology and Venereology (NVDV) and multidisciplinary panel Year: 2014Country: Netherlands Lymphoedema volume reductionInsufficient / conflicting evidenceHistoricalStates that evidence for soft lasers reducing lymphoedema is lacking, after describing small and inconsistent trials. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Lymphoedema volume reduction
- Strength as reported
- Narrative evidence assessment; no separate laser grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Lymphoedema; cited laser studies largely concern breast-cancer-related arm lymphoedema
- Intervention
- Low level laser / soft lasers
- Qualification
- Historical 2014 wording. A 2022 upload or 2023/2024 module title does not establish a new PBM recommendation. This is not proof that every newer protocol is ineffective.
- Specialty in collection
- Lymphology
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Dutch Society for Dermatology and Venereology (NVDV) and multidisciplinary panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical full 2014 edition; modular revision 2023/2024 exists
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Conservative treatment, printed/PDF pp. 58–59, Overige overwegingen
- Document notes
- The 2014 full guideline states that evidence for soft lasers reducing lymphoedema is lacking. The 2022 upload path does not change the edition year. A current PBM recommendation is not inferred from the 2023/2024 module, whose laser search hits were references rather than a verified new therapeutic statement.
Op dit moment ontbreekt bewijs over de effectiviteit van soft lasers
Source excerpt · Conservative treatment, printed/PDF pp. 58–59, Overige overwegingenStatement LYMPH-DUTCH-2014
-
Document: Lymphoedema Framework international consensus working group Year: 2006Country: International Lymphedema, particularly the upper limbSupportive evidence statementHistoricalThe consensus describes potential LLLT benefit but requests research on treatment benefit and optimal regimens. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Lymphedema, particularly the upper limb
- Strength as reported
- No formal laser-specific grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Lymphedema; limb volume and tissue hardness
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Historical 2006 consensus; not a current strong endorsement or proof of a lasting effect.
- Specialty in collection
- Lymphology
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Lymphoedema Framework international consensus working group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2006 consensus; not a current-version claim
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 55 / printed p. 51, Laser therapy
- Document notes
- A cautious narrative statement of potential benefit, with further research requested; distinct from ISL 2020/2023.
Low level laser therapy has shown potential
Source excerpt · PDF p. 55 / printed p. 51, Laser therapyStatement LYMPH-FRAMEWORK-2006
-
-
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw
-
Document: Chinese expert panel on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (Ruan et al.) Year: 2024Country: China Supportive evidence statementThe consensus discusses possible pain, edema and lesion-size benefit with LLLT, but explicitly notes a lack of high-quality studies. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw
- Strength as reported
- No formal LLLT-specific grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- LLLT as an adjunct to antibiotics and/or surgery; MRONJ
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Reported improvements involve combined therapy and heterogeneous laser protocols; no independent PBM effect or cure rate is inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral surgery
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese expert panel on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (Ruan et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 expert consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- §2.5.2.5 Ozone and low-level laser therapy
- Document notes
- LLLT is discussed as a promising adjunct, with explicit acknowledgment of a lack of high-quality studies. Combined-treatment findings are not isolated PBM effects.
there still lacks high quality study evaluating the therapeutic effects of LLLT
Source excerpt · §2.5.2.5 Ozone and low-level laser therapyStatement MRONJ-CHINA-2024
-
Document: Società Italiana di Patologia e Medicina Orale (SIPMO); Società Italiana di Chirurgia Maxillo-Facciale (SICMF) Year: 2023Country: Italy MRONJ: nonsurgical palliative careMay considerLists LLLT/laser PBM as an adjunct to nonsurgical care for palliation and exfoliation of necrotic bone. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- MRONJ: nonsurgical palliative care
- Strength as reported
- Adjunctive option; ungraded
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- All MRONJ stages when surgery is contraindicated or declined; symptomatic care
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Restricted nonsurgical/palliative setting. Laser-assisted bone surgery elsewhere in the table is not PBM.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral surgery
- Country / scope
- Italy
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Società Italiana di Patologia e Medicina Orale (SIPMO); Società Italiana di Chirurgia Maxillo-Facciale (SICMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 position update; published 2024
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 7(c), nonsurgical protocol and footnote c
- Document notes
- Table 7(c) includes LLLT/PBM as an adjunct in nonsurgical palliative management when surgery is contraindicated or declined. Laser-assisted bone surgery in other table rows is a different intervention.
biostimulation with ozone or low- level laser
Source excerpt · Table 7(c), nonsurgical protocol and footnote cStatement MRONJ-ITALY-PALLIATIVE
-
-
Melasma, psoriasis, rosacea, sensitive skin, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China May considerOffers weak recommendations for selected other skin conditions, with low or very low evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Melasma, psoriasis, rosacea, sensitive skin, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo
- Strength as reported
- Weak
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low/very low-quality
- Population / setting
- Adjunctive PBM for selected other dermatologic conditions; individualized protocols
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 13
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Melasma, psoriasis
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 13Statement CHINA-OTHER
-
-
Meniscal tears
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2019Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for meniscal tears. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Meniscal tears
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Meniscal tears
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Knee Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 3 December 2019; California source path dated 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary table PDF p. 9; LLLT recommendation p. 146
Low-level Laser Therapy for Meniscal tears
Source excerpt · Summary table PDF p. 9; LLLT recommendation p. 146Statement MENISCUS-ACOEM
-
-
Muscle-tension dysphonia
-
Document: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil) Year: 2025Country: Brazil Insufficient / conflicting evidenceThe PBM-use statement did not meet the expert consensus threshold. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Muscle-tension dysphonia
- Strength as reported
- No consensus; CVC 0.71 below threshold 0.75
- Evidence certainty as reported
- No GRADE efficacy rating
- Population / setting
- Muscle-tension dysphonia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- No consensus is not a formal recommendation against treatment.
- Specialty in collection
- Voice / speech therapy
- Country / scope
- Brazil
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 Delphi consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, item 14
- Document notes
- CVC values measure agreement/content validity among seven experts; they are not clinical efficacy or GRADE certainty ratings. Non-consensus indications are retained.
I use PBM in cases of patients with dysphonia due to muscle tension.
Source excerpt · Table 2, item 14Statement VOICE-TENSION-NOCONSENSUS
-
-
Neck pain
-
Document: German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) / interdisciplinary S3 panel Year: 2025Country: Germany Nonspecific neck painRecommendation againstLaser therapy should not be used for nonspecific neck pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Nonspecific neck pain
- Strength as reported
- B; 100% consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Evidence grade 2 (source framework)
- Population / setting
- Acute or chronic nonspecific neck pain
- Intervention
- Laser therapy (LLLT / HILT evidence discussed)
- Qualification
- The guideline evaluates laser broadly and discusses both evidence limitations and active-care goals.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) / interdisciplinary S3 panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 29; printed p. 42
- Document notes
- Official DEGAM PDF; recommendation 29.
Lasertherapie sollte zur Behandlung nicht-spezifischer
Source excerpt · Recommendation 29; printed p. 42Statement NECK-DEGAM
-
Document: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group Year: 2017Country: Finland Neck pain in adultsInsufficient / conflicting evidenceStates that reliable information on low-level laser effectiveness is lacking. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Neck pain in adults
- Strength as reported
- No explicit treatment-strength grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C (Käypä hoito evidence grade)
- Population / setting
- Adults with neck pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Grade C rates evidence, not recommendation strength.
- Specialty in collection
- Finnish clinical guideline
- Document
- Niskakipu (aikuiset)
- Country / scope
- Finland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- In force on source page; published 16 January 2017
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text and evidence summary
- Location in source
- Fysikaaliset hoidot; linked evidence summary nak08828
Matalatehoisen laserin vaikuttavuudesta
Source excerpt · Fysikaaliset hoidot; linked evidence summary nak08828Statement FI-NECK
-
Document: APTA Orthopaedic Section Year: 2017Country: United States Acute neck pain with radiating painMay considerLists laser among options clinicians may provide for acute neck pain with radiating pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute neck pain with radiating pain
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute neck pain with radiating pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Compare the different population definition and recommendation with OPTIMa 2016 grade III neck disorders.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Neck Pain: Revision 2017
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Orthopaedic Section. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 revision
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary of recommendations, PDF p. 3
laser, and short-term use of a cervical collar
Source excerpt · Summary of recommendations, PDF p. 3Statement NECK-APTA-ACUTE
-
Document: APTA Orthopaedic Section Year: 2017Country: United States Chronic neck pain with mobility deficitsRecommended / permittedLists laser as one possible component of multimodal care with manual therapy and mixed exercise. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic neck pain with mobility deficits
- Strength as reported
- B (multimodal recommendation)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Chronic neck pain with mobility deficits; multimodal care
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- B applies to the multimodal recommendation; not standalone PBM treatment.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Neck Pain: Revision 2017
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Orthopaedic Section. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2017 revision
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary of recommendations, PDF p. 2
Dry needling, laser, or intermittent mechanical/manual traction
Source excerpt · Summary of recommendations, PDF p. 2Statement NECK-APTA-CHRONIC
-
Document: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) Year: 2016Country: Netherlands Nonspecific neck pain, grades I–IIIRecommendation againstAdvises against low-level laser for neck pain grades I–III. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Nonspecific neck pain, grades I–III
- Strength as reported
- Not recommended (grouped recommendation)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low-quality evidence (grouped interventions)
- Population / setting
- Neck pain grades I, II and III
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Different from the APTA 2017 recommendations. Low-quality rating is attached to the grouped intervention recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2016 KNGF guideline; journal publication 2018
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Published article PDF pp. 6–7; treatment recommendations
- Document notes
- Published article retrieved from the Vrije Universiteit repository. The 2016 society practice document was also inspected.
It is not recommended that clinicians use dry needling, low-level laser
Source excerpt · Published article PDF pp. 6–7; treatment recommendationsStatement NECK-KNGF
-
Document: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Year: 2016Country: Canada Persistent neck pain, NAD grades I–IIMay considerMay consider LLLT together with structured patient education. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Persistent neck pain, NAD grades I–II
- Strength as reported
- Clinicians may consider
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- NAD grades I–II for >3 months, combined with structured patient education
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Preserve the duration and absence of grade III neurological signs.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2016 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text, author reproduction
- Location in source
- Recommendation 5
- Document notes
- Full article reproduced by Chiro.org; bibliographic identity checked against PubMed.
For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration
Source excerpt · Recommendation 5Statement NECK-OPTIMA-CHRONIC
-
Document: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Year: 2016Country: Canada Recent-onset neck disorder with neurological signs, NAD grade IIIRecommendation againstAdvises against LLLT for recent-onset grade III neck disorders. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Recent-onset neck disorder with neurological signs, NAD grade III
- Strength as reported
- Clinicians should not offer
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- NAD grade III, duration ≤3 months
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This differs from APTA 2017's acute radiating-pain statement; the clinical category and framework must remain visible.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2016 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text, author reproduction
- Location in source
- Recommendation 6
- Document notes
- Full article reproduced by Chiro.org; bibliographic identity checked against PubMed.
For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration
Source excerpt · Recommendation 6Statement NECK-OPTIMA-GRADEIII
-
Document: Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Development Committee (Bryans et al.) Year: 2014Country: Canada Chronic mechanical neck pain: multimodal careRecommended / permittedLists LLLT as one component of a strongly recommended multimodal approach. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic mechanical neck pain: multimodal care
- Strength as reported
- Strong for multimodal manipulative care
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Chronic adult mechanical neck pain; LLLT among components of multimodal manipulation-based care
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The strong recommendation applies to multimodal care and cannot be transferred to LLLT alone.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Development Committee (Bryans et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2014 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text, author reproduction
- Location in source
- Recommendations: manipulation / multimodal chronic neck pain
- Document notes
- LLLT is listed within a strong multimodal recommendation; the strong rating must not be attributed to laser alone.
low-level laser therapy, soft
Source excerpt · Recommendations: manipulation / multimodal chronic neck painStatement NECK-CHIRO-MULTIMODAL
-
-
Neuropathic pain
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for neuropathic pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Neuropathic pain
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Neuropathic pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Pain
- Document
- Chronic Pain
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 22 December 2025; official California source path dated 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 379
- Document notes
- The current linked edition was retrieved; 2024 preliminary material was not counted separately.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of neuropathic pain.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 379Statement NEUROPATHIC-ACOEM
-
-
Non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration
-
Document: Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft (DOG); Retinologische Gesellschaft; Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands (BVA) Year: 2025Country: Germany Nonexudative age-related macular degenerationRecommendation againstThe societies do not issue a treatment recommendation and state that PBM should currently be performed only in clinical studies. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Nonexudative age-related macular degeneration
- Strength as reported
- Use only within clinical studies; no formal numeric grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- PBM for AMD; statement as of 4 July 2025
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The position cites unproven efficacy and possible risks. This research-only restriction is not inferred from device regulatory status.
- Specialty in collection
- Ophthalmology
- Document
- Photobiomodulation bei AMD
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft (DOG); Retinologische Gesellschaft; Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands (BVA). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Statement dated 4 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 2, conclusion
- Document notes
- States that efficacy is unproven and PBM should currently be used only in clinical studies. This clinical position is distinct from regulatory authorization.
Die Behandlung sollte aktuell nur im Rahmen klinischer Studien durchgeführt werden.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 2, conclusionStatement AMD-DOG-2025
-
Document: American Academy of Ophthalmology Year: 2024Country: United States Mention onlyThe official update note confirms a mention of multiwavelength PBM and the FDA's 2024 de novo authorization of Valeda. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- AAO PPP 2024 treatment section; official December 2025 clarification about a device
- Intervention
- Device-specific multiwavelength photobiomodulation
- Qualification
- Only the official update note was read. A PBM treatment recommendation cannot be inferred from a device-authorization statement.
- Specialty in collection
- Ophthalmology
- Document
- Age-Related Macular Degeneration Preferred Practice Pattern 2024: official December 2025 update note
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Ophthalmology. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 PPP; December 2025 clarification
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Official update note only
- Location in source
- Official update note, December 2025; refers to PPP p. 21
- Document notes
- The official note verifies a PBM mention and FDA de novo authorization wording. The complete PPP treatment recommendation was not accessible; no endorsement is inferred.
multiwavelength photobiomodulation
Source excerpt · Official update note, December 2025; refers to PPP p. 21Statement AMD-AAO-MENTION
-
-
Occipital neuralgia
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2026Country: International Insufficient / conflicting evidenceInsufficient condition-specific clinical evidence prevents a WALT recommendation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Occipital neuralgia
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation possible
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Condition-specific PBM use
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Neither absence of a recommendation nor a PBM position paper title constitutes an endorsement.
- Specialty in collection
- Orofacial pain / PBM position paper
- Document
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain—WALT Position Paper 2026
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.3.5
- Document notes
- Distinguishes BMS clinical practice guidance from expert consensus for trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia.
Occipital
Source excerpt · Section 4.3.5Statement WALT26-ON
-
-
Oral lichen planus
-
Document: National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (NHC) Year: 2022Country: China May considerExplicitly permits low-power laser as another treatment option for oral lichen planus. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral lichen planus
- Strength as reported
- May be used; ungraded national-guideline option
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- OLP treatment; other therapies after the drug-therapy sections
- Intervention
- Weak/low-power laser therapy (弱激光疗法); separate from PDT
- Qualification
- Photodynamic therapy is named separately and is not PBM. No laser-specific strength, certainty, wavelength or dose is provided; the first-line corticosteroid recommendations remain distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oral medicine
- Document
- 口腔扁平苔藓诊疗指南（2022年版） / Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of oral lichen planus (2022 edition)
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (NHC). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 national issued guideline; 15-page document
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section III(4), Other therapies, printed/PDF p. 10; clinical flow chart p. 14
- Document notes
- Section III(4) explicitly permits weak/low-power laser therapy and separately lists photodynamic therapy. No laser-specific grade or dosing protocol is provided. This government guideline is distinct from the Chinese Stomatological Association revised OLP guideline published in the same year; its DOI is not transferred here.
弱激光疗法及光动力疗法也可用于口腔扁平苔癣的治疗。
Source excerpt · Section III(4), Other therapies, printed/PDF p. 10; clinical flow chart p. 14Statement OLP-CHINA-NHC-2022
-
-
Oral mucositis
-
Document: Chinese multidisciplinary oral mucositis expert consensus panel (Xia et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Oral mucositis prevention: head and neck chemoradiotherapySupportive evidence statementDiscusses a preventive role for LLLT, noting generally supportive but inconsistent studies and protocol limitations. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: head and neck chemoradiotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus; no laser-specific formal grade verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy; prevention
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- No universal device or dose endorsement is inferred from the narrative.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese multidisciplinary oral mucositis expert consensus panel (Xia et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Photobiotherapy prevention section
- Document notes
- The photobiotherapy prevention section was read. No laser-specific recommendation grade was assigned unless explicitly stated.
LLLT has also been proposed to have a role in preventing OM
Source excerpt · Photobiotherapy prevention sectionStatement OM-CHINA-HNC
-
Document: Chinese multidisciplinary oral mucositis expert consensus panel (Xia et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Pediatric oral mucositis prevention and controlSupportive evidence statementThe consensus describes LLLT as beneficial for preventing and controlling severe oral mucositis in these pediatric settings. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pediatric oral mucositis prevention and control
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus; no laser-specific formal grade verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Pediatric HSCT, high-dose radiochemotherapy or radiochemotherapy for head and neck tumors
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The source's broad pediatric wording is retained; it is not substituted for POGO's narrower formally stated settings.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric oncology
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese multidisciplinary oral mucositis expert consensus panel (Xia et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Photobiotherapy prevention section
- Document notes
- The photobiotherapy prevention section was read. No laser-specific recommendation grade was assigned unless explicitly stated.
For pediatric patients undergoing HSCT
Source excerpt · Photobiotherapy prevention sectionStatement OM-CHINA-PEDIATRIC
-
Document: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL) Year: 2025Country: Poland Oral mucositis prevention in head/neck chemoradiationRecommended / permittedIncludes head and neck chemoradiation among high-risk settings for standard preventive supportive PBM. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention in head/neck chemoradiation
- Strength as reported
- Society clinical recommendation; no separate numeric strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- High-risk head and neck chemoradiation; preventive PBM
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The recommendation also calls for coordination with the treating oncologist; it is not an unrestricted device or dose endorsement.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- Poland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 original; author-translated Polish reprint 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Key clinical recommendations
- Document notes
- Own clinical recommendations are distinguished from its summary of other organizations. Its characterization of HTW 2022 as supporting implementation conflicts with HTW's primary guidance; see Source issues. Original and translated reprint counted once.
- Source issue
The PTSL umbrella review characterizes HTW 2022 as supporting PBM implementation. Final HTW Guidance 044 explicitly does not support routine laser-PBM adoption because of cost effectiveness, despite acknowledging clinical benefit.
Own PTSL recommendations are recorded as such. The HTW entry follows the original four-page guidance, not the review summary. Clinical benefit and adoption economics remain distinct.
head and neck chemoradiation
Source excerpt · Key clinical recommendationsStatement OM-PTSL-HNC-CRT
-
Document: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL) Year: 2025Country: Poland Oral mucositis prevention in HSCTRecommended / permittedRecommends PBM as standard supportive care for high-risk therapies including HSCT, with prevention prioritized. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention in HSCT
- Strength as reported
- Society clinical recommendation; no separate numeric strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- High-risk oncologic treatment including HSCT; preventive PBM
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Society recommendations built on an umbrella review; not independent patient evidence from MASCC/WALT. Specific eligibility and protocols remain important.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- Poland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 original; author-translated Polish reprint 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Clinical implications / Key clinical recommendations
- Document notes
- Own clinical recommendations are distinguished from its summary of other organizations. Its characterization of HTW 2022 as supporting implementation conflicts with HTW's primary guidance; see Source issues. Original and translated reprint counted once.
- Source issue
The PTSL umbrella review characterizes HTW 2022 as supporting PBM implementation. Final HTW Guidance 044 explicitly does not support routine laser-PBM adoption because of cost effectiveness, despite acknowledging clinical benefit.
Own PTSL recommendations are recorded as such. The HTW entry follows the original four-page guidance, not the review summary. Clinical benefit and adoption economics remain distinct.
PBMT should be incorporated as standard supportive care
Source excerpt · Clinical implications / Key clinical recommendationsStatement OM-PTSL-HSCT
-
Document: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL) Year: 2025Country: Poland Pediatric oral mucositis: proposed age-adapted protocolsExpert protocol / consensusThe paper proposes age-adapted delivery, including extraoral treatment for very young children or those unable to tolerate intraoral application. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pediatric oral mucositis: proposed age-adapted protocols
- Strength as reported
- Society technical protocol; not a separate graded pediatric efficacy recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Young children unable to tolerate intraoral treatment; extraoral near-infrared alternative discussed
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Protocol advice is distinct from direct trial certainty for every pediatric indication; the authors call for further pediatric harmonization.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric oncology
- Country / scope
- Poland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 original; author-translated Polish reprint 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Clinical implications; Table 9
- Document notes
- Own clinical recommendations are distinguished from its summary of other organizations. Its characterization of HTW 2022 as supporting implementation conflicts with HTW's primary guidance; see Source issues. Original and translated reprint counted once.
patients who cannot tolerate intraoral application
Source excerpt · Clinical implications; Table 9Statement OM-PTSL-PEDS-PROTOCOL
-
Document: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL) Year: 2025Country: Poland Treatment of established oral mucositisRecommended / permittedThe society's clinical recommendations describe therapeutic PBM after onset as providing analgesia and accelerating healing. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Treatment of established oral mucositis
- Strength as reported
- Society clinical recommendation; no separate numeric strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- PBM after mucositis onset; pain relief and healing
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Treatment evidence and population/protocol variability should be retained; preventive and therapeutic use are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- Poland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Polish Society for Laser Dentistry (PTSL). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 original; author-translated Polish reprint 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Key clinical recommendations
- Document notes
- Own clinical recommendations are distinguished from its summary of other organizations. Its characterization of HTW 2022 as supporting implementation conflicts with HTW's primary guidance; see Source issues. Original and translated reprint counted once.
- Source issue
The PTSL umbrella review characterizes HTW 2022 as supporting PBM implementation. Final HTW Guidance 044 explicitly does not support routine laser-PBM adoption because of cost effectiveness, despite acknowledging clinical benefit.
Own PTSL recommendations are recorded as such. The HTW entry follows the original four-page guidance, not the review summary. Clinical benefit and adoption economics remain distinct.
Therapeutic PBMT
Source excerpt · Key clinical recommendationsStatement OM-PTSL-TREAT
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany Oral mucositis prevention during chemotherapyInsufficient / conflicting evidenceInsufficient evidence to recommend for or against PBM for prevention during chemotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention during chemotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Evidence-based statement; strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 2
- Population / setting
- Chemotherapy outside the separately assessed HSCT / radiotherapy settings
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 7.6; PDF p. 197
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
Für die Anwendung von photobiomodulierender Therapie zur Prophylaxe
Source excerpt · 7.6; PDF p. 197Statement S3-SUPPORT-CHEMO-PREV
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany Treatment of oral mucositis during chemotherapyInsufficient / conflicting evidenceInsufficient evidence to recommend for or against PBM treatment. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Treatment of oral mucositis during chemotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Evidence-based statement; strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 4
- Population / setting
- Treatment of established chemotherapy-related oral mucositis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 7.17; PDF p. 221
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
zur Therapie von oraler Mukositis bei Chemotherapie
Source excerpt · 7.17; PDF p. 221Statement S3-SUPPORT-CHEMO-TREAT
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany Oral mucositis prevention in HSCTMay considerPBM may be performed to prevent oral mucositis in HSCT with a specified protocol. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention in HSCT
- Strength as reported
- Grade 0 (open recommendation); strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 1
- Population / setting
- HSCT, using one of the proposed complete protocols
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 7.11; PDF p. 211
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
Die Photobiomodulierende Therapie kann zur Prophylaxe
Source excerpt · 7.11; PDF p. 211Statement S3-SUPPORT-HSCT-PREV
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany Treatment of oral mucositis in HSCTInsufficient / conflicting evidenceInsufficient evidence to recommend for or against PBM treatment in HSCT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Treatment of oral mucositis in HSCT
- Strength as reported
- Evidence-based statement; strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 3
- Population / setting
- HSCT with or without total body irradiation; established oral mucositis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 7.22; PDF p. 227
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
zur Therapie von oraler Mukositis bei Patient*innen mit HSZT
Source excerpt · 7.22; PDF p. 227Statement S3-SUPPORT-HSCT-TREAT
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany Radiation-induced oral mucositis preventionMay considerIntraoral PBM may be used to prevent radiation-induced oral mucositis with a listed regimen. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation-induced oral mucositis prevention
- Strength as reported
- Grade 0 (open recommendation); strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 1
- Population / setting
- Intraoral PBM during radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy; specified protocols
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 11.93; PDF p. 509
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
Eine Prophylaxe der radiogenen oralen Mukositis
Source excerpt · 11.93; PDF p. 509Statement S3-SUPPORT-RT-OM-PREV
-
Document: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council Year: 2024Country: Russia Oral mucositis prevention during RT/CRT for lip cancerRecommended / permittedRecommends oral low-intensity laser for mucositis prevention throughout RT/CRT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention during RT/CRT for lip cancer
- Strength as reported
- C (Russian recommendation system)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 5 (Russian evidence system)
- Population / setting
- Oral-cavity LLLT throughout RT or chemoradiotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Retains C/5 exactly as reported; does not substitute MASCC/ISOO's different grades.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- Russia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 national guideline; ID 553_2; review due by 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full-text guideline reproduction
- Location in source
- Rehabilitation during RT; reference 100
- Document notes
- Read from complete guideline reproduction. Bibliographic ID, year and issuing bodies verified. Grades are the Russian source's own system. The document also mentions intravenous laser blood irradiation; that distinct intervention is excluded from PBM rows.
на полость рта для профилактики мукозита полости рта
Source excerpt · Rehabilitation during RT; reference 100Statement LIP-RUSSIA-OM-PREV
-
Document: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) Year: 2022Country: United States Pediatric oral mucositisMention onlyThe policy notes that PBM has been used for prevention and treatment of pediatric oral mucositis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pediatric oral mucositis
- Strength as reported
- No PBM-specific recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Children; oral mucositis associated with chemotherapy, radiation or transplantation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Describes use and cites pediatric/mucositis guidance; it is not an independent formal prevention-and-treatment endorsement for every pediatric cancer regimen.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Latest revision 2022; retrieved in the 2025 Reference Manual
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 3 / printed p. 143, Background
- Document notes
- Society policy with narrative PBM applications. The general laser policy is not a formal PBM-specific graded clinical practice guideline.
PBM therapy has been used in children
Source excerpt · PDF p. 3 / printed p. 143, BackgroundStatement OM-AAPD
-
Document: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) Year: 2022Country: United States Oral mucositis prevention in pediatric HCT careRecommended / permittedThe best-practice document includes PBM among preventive measures and reports MASCC/ISOO support for HCT conditioning. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention in pediatric HCT care
- Strength as reported
- Ungraded best practice; cites MASCC/ISOO
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- HCT conditioning with high-dose chemotherapy, with/without total-body irradiation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Uses the cited MASCC/ISOO settings; no separate AAPD numeric grade or blanket all-regimen pediatric recommendation is inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Latest revision 2022; retrieved in 2025 Reference Manual
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 5 / printed p. 575, Oral mucositis
- Document notes
- Best-practice document, distinct from AAPD's general laser policy. Cites MASCC/ISOO and pediatric studies; no standalone PBM-specific numeric grade is supplied.
prevent OM in patients undergoing HCT conditioning
Source excerpt · PDF p. 5 / printed p. 575, Oral mucositisStatement OM-AAPD-CHEMO-HCT
-
Document: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) Year: 2022Country: United States Oral mucositis prevention in head and neck radiotherapyRecommended / permittedReports guideline support for preventive PBM in head and neck radiotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention in head and neck radiotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Ungraded best practice; cites MASCC/ISOO
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Head and neck radiotherapy; pediatric best-practice context with much adult evidence
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The text notes limited pediatric data and reliance on adult studies; grade is not transferred from MASCC to a new AAPD-specific grade.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Latest revision 2022; retrieved in 2025 Reference Manual
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 5 / printed p. 575, Oral mucositis
- Document notes
- Best-practice document, distinct from AAPD's general laser policy. Cites MASCC/ISOO and pediatric studies; no standalone PBM-specific numeric grade is supplied.
patients undergoing radiation treatment for head and neck cancer
Source excerpt · PDF p. 5 / printed p. 575, Oral mucositisStatement OM-AAPD-CHEMO-RT
-
Document: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) Year: 2022Country: United States Established chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in childrenSupportive evidence statementThe document says PBM can decrease pain, duration and severity of chemotherapy-induced OM in children. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Established chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in children
- Strength as reported
- Narrative evidence statement; ungraded
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Children with chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Narrative pediatric treatment evidence, distinct from formal prevention recommendations and from a validated universal protocol.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Latest revision 2022; retrieved in 2025 Reference Manual
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 5 / printed p. 575
- Document notes
- Best-practice document, distinct from AAPD's general laser policy. Cites MASCC/ISOO and pediatric studies; no standalone PBM-specific numeric grade is supplied.
PBM can decrease pain and the duration and severity
Source excerpt · PDF p. 5 / printed p. 575Statement OM-AAPD-CHEMO-TREAT
-
Document: Health Technology Wales (HTW) Year: 2022Country: United Kingdom (Wales) Oral mucositis: routine laser-PBM adoptionRecommendation againstHTW recognizes clinical laser-PBM benefit but does not support routine adoption because its Welsh NHS analysis finds it not cost effective, mainly due to staffing costs. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis: routine laser-PBM adoption
- Strength as reported
- Routine adoption cannot be supported; contextual HTA recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Welsh NHS; laser PBM clinical and cost effectiveness
- Intervention
- Low-level laser PBM
- Qualification
- A cost/implementation decision is not a claim of clinical ineffectiveness. The PTSL review's favorable characterization of HTW conflicts with this primary guidance.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / health technology guidance
- Country / scope
- United Kingdom (Wales)
Health Technology Wales issues guidance for Wales; Wales is retained within the United Kingdom label. The adoption decision is specific to NHS Wales.
- Edition / status
- October 2022 guidance; report v2 hosted March 2023
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Final Guidance 044, PDF pp. 1–3
- Document notes
- Routine adoption is not supported despite clinical laser-PBM benefit, because of the Welsh NHS cost-effectiveness analysis and staffing costs. LED evidence is separately insufficient. The final guidance is used instead of the preliminary topic report.
- Source issue
The PTSL umbrella review characterizes HTW 2022 as supporting PBM implementation. Final HTW Guidance 044 explicitly does not support routine laser-PBM adoption because of cost effectiveness, despite acknowledging clinical benefit.
Own PTSL recommendations are recorded as such. The HTW entry follows the original four-page guidance, not the review summary. Clinical benefit and adoption economics remain distinct.
routine adoption of laser photobiomodulation cannot be supported
Source excerpt · Final Guidance 044, PDF pp. 1–3Statement OM-HTW-LASER-ADOPTION
-
Document: Health Technology Wales (HTW) Year: 2022Country: United Kingdom (Wales) Oral mucositis: LED PBMInsufficient / conflicting evidenceHTW finds LED clinical evidence insufficient and advises further research; it does not transfer laser efficacy data directly to LED. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis: LED PBM
- Strength as reported
- Further research recommended; routine adoption unsupported
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Limited clinical evidence
- Population / setting
- LED PBM; prevention/treatment of cancer-treatment-related oral mucositis
- Intervention
- LED photobiomodulation
- Qualification
- Laser and LED delivery differ. Economic feasibility alone does not establish clinical efficacy for LED.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / health technology guidance
- Country / scope
- United Kingdom (Wales)
Health Technology Wales issues guidance for Wales; Wales is retained within the United Kingdom label. The adoption decision is specific to NHS Wales.
- Edition / status
- October 2022 guidance; report v2 hosted March 2023
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Final Guidance 044, PDF pp. 1–3
- Document notes
- Routine adoption is not supported despite clinical laser-PBM benefit, because of the Welsh NHS cost-effectiveness analysis and staffing costs. LED evidence is separately insufficient. The final guidance is used instead of the preliminary topic report.
Further research is recommended to establish the clinical effectiveness of LED
Source excerpt · Final Guidance 044, PDF pp. 1–3Statement OM-HTW-LED
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Oral mucositis: prevention and treatment protocolsRecommended / permittedThe mucositis section gives PBM prevention and treatment protocols and is explicitly labelled clinical practice guidelines; the strongest contextual evidence concerns prevention in specified cancer regimens. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis: prevention and treatment protocols
- Strength as reported
- Section labelled clinical practice guidelines
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated oral mucositis; intraoral and transcutaneous delivery protocols
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This position paper builds partly on MASCC/ISOO; do not count it as independent trial evidence. Keep prevention and treatment populations distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.1.1; Table 1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
WALT recommendation 2022: clinical practice guidelines
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.1.1; Table 1Statement WALT22-OM
-
Document: Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario (POGO); endorsed by Children's Oncology Group Year: 2021Country: Canada Oral mucositis prevention: pediatric HSCTRecommended / permittedRecommends intraoral PBM in the 620–750 nm spectrum for pediatric autologous or allogeneic HSCT. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: pediatric HSCT
- Strength as reported
- Strong recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High-quality evidence
- Population / setting
- Children undergoing autologous or allogeneic HSCT
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Strength and quality verified in the official COG reproduction of POGO 2021. Recommendation 4 covers HSCT and head/neck carcinoma; other pediatric head/neck cancers have a separate conditional recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric oncology
- Country / scope
- Canada
POGO is the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, Canada. The US Children's Oncology Group endorsement is retained in the document record and is not treated as a second issuer country or document.
- Edition / status
- 2021 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Official recommendation summary
- Location in source
- Official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, PDF p. 43, recommendation 4
- Document notes
- The official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, version 27 August 2025, reproduces the 2021 recommendations with strength and evidence quality on pp. 42–44. It resolves the previous abstract-only grade gap. The COG endorsement is not counted as a second guideline.
Use intraoral photobiomodulation therapy in the red light spectrum
Source excerpt · Official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, PDF p. 43, recommendation 4Statement OM-POGO-HSCT
-
Document: Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario (POGO); endorsed by Children's Oncology Group Year: 2021Country: Canada Oral mucositis prevention: pediatric head and neck radiotherapyRecommended / permittedRecommends intraoral PBM in the 620–750 nm spectrum for pediatric head and neck carcinoma patients receiving radiotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: pediatric head and neck radiotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Strong recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High-quality evidence
- Population / setting
- Pediatric head and neck carcinoma receiving radiotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Strength and quality verified in the official COG reproduction of POGO 2021. Recommendation 4 covers HSCT and head/neck carcinoma; other pediatric head/neck cancers have a separate conditional recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric oncology
- Country / scope
- Canada
POGO is the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, Canada. The US Children's Oncology Group endorsement is retained in the document record and is not treated as a second issuer country or document.
- Edition / status
- 2021 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Official recommendation summary
- Location in source
- Official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, PDF p. 43, recommendation 4
- Document notes
- The official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, version 27 August 2025, reproduces the 2021 recommendations with strength and evidence quality on pp. 42–44. It resolves the previous abstract-only grade gap. The COG endorsement is not counted as a second guideline.
Use intraoral photobiomodulation therapy in the red light spectrum
Source excerpt · Official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, PDF p. 43, recommendation 4Statement OM-POGO-RT
-
Document: Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario (POGO); endorsed by Children's Oncology Group Year: 2021Country: Canada Oral mucositis prevention: pediatric head/neck RT for noncarcinomaMay considerConsider intraoral PBM; the panel extrapolates benefits from carcinoma radiotherapy because direct data for other pediatric head/neck cancers were unavailable. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: pediatric head/neck RT for noncarcinoma
- Strength as reported
- Conditional recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate-quality evidence
- Population / setting
- Children receiving head/neck RT for cancers other than carcinoma, e.g. rhabdomyosarcoma; intraoral red-light PBM 620–750 nm
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Same POGO 2021 guideline as the two existing strong/high-quality rows; a separate indirect-evidence setting, not a new document.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric oncology
- Country / scope
- Canada
POGO is the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, Canada. The US Children's Oncology Group endorsement is retained in the document record and is not treated as a second issuer country or document.
- Edition / status
- 2021 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Official recommendation summary
- Location in source
- COG official endorsed-guideline summary, PDF p. 44, recommendation 5
- Document notes
- The official COG endorsed-guideline compilation, version 27 August 2025, reproduces the 2021 recommendations with strength and evidence quality on pp. 42–44. It resolves the previous abstract-only grade gap. The COG endorsement is not counted as a second guideline.
radiotherapy for head and neck cancers other than carcinoma
Source excerpt · COG official endorsed-guideline summary, PDF p. 44, recommendation 5Statement OM-POGO-RT-NONCARCINOMA
-
Document: Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS) Year: 2020Country: France Oral mucositis during radiotherapyMay considerLists low-energy laser as another possible therapy and directs readers to the AFSOS mucositis reference. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis during radiotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Possible therapeutic option; ungraded
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- During radiotherapy; oral mucositis section
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Brief cross-reference; no additional laser-specific grade or protocol is supplied here.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- France
AFSOS is the France-based Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support. France identifies the issuing body; Francophone does not mean France-only clinical applicability.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- Validated 9 October 2020
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 10, During radiotherapy / Mucites
- Document notes
- Refers to the AFSOS mucositis reference for low-energy laser; not independent trial evidence.
Autre thérapeutique possible
Source excerpt · PDF p. 10, During radiotherapy / MucitesStatement OM-AFSOS-RT-2020
-
Document: MASCC/ISOO Year: 2020Country: International Oral mucositis prevention: head and neck chemoradiotherapyRecommended / permittedRecommends intraoral PBM to prevent oral mucositis during head and neck chemoradiotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: head and neck chemoradiotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE I
- Population / setting
- Adults receiving head and neck radiotherapy with chemotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- 2019 PBM paper and 2020 consolidated guideline are the same update, not two independent recommendations.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC/ISOO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019/2020 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Photobiomodulation section; Table 1, PBM row 3
- Document notes
- PBM-specific recommendations appeared in 2019; the 2020 guideline consolidates the same update. Counted as one guideline document/family here.
A recommendation for the prevention of OM with intraoral PBM therapy in patients with cancer who receive H&N RT with CT
Source excerpt · Photobiomodulation section; Table 1, PBM row 3Statement OM-MASCC-CRT
-
Document: MASCC/ISOO Year: 2020Country: International Oral mucositis prevention: HSCTRecommended / permittedRecommends intraoral PBM to prevent oral mucositis in the specified transplant setting. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: HSCT
- Strength as reported
- Recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE I
- Population / setting
- Adults receiving high-dose conditioning for HSCT, with or without total body irradiation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Use a complete guideline-specified protocol; this is a prevention recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC/ISOO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019/2020 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Photobiomodulation section; Table 1, PBM row 1
- Document notes
- PBM-specific recommendations appeared in 2019; the 2020 guideline consolidates the same update. Counted as one guideline document/family here.
A recommendation for the prevention of OM with intraoral PBM therapy in patients who undergo HSCT
Source excerpt · Photobiomodulation section; Table 1, PBM row 1Statement OM-MASCC-HSCT
-
Document: MASCC/ISOO Year: 2020Country: International Oral mucositis prevention: head and neck radiotherapyRecommended / permittedRecommends intraoral PBM to prevent oral mucositis during head and neck radiotherapy without chemotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: head and neck radiotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE II
- Population / setting
- Adults receiving head and neck radiotherapy without chemotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Do not extend the recommendation to every cancer regimen or delivery route.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC/ISOO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019/2020 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Photobiomodulation section; Table 1, PBM row 2
- Document notes
- PBM-specific recommendations appeared in 2019; the 2020 guideline consolidates the same update. Counted as one guideline document/family here.
A recommendation for the prevention of OM with intraoral PBM therapy in patients with cancer who receive H&N RT (without CT)
Source excerpt · Photobiomodulation section; Table 1, PBM row 2Statement OM-MASCC-RT
-
Document: NICE Year: 2018Country: United Kingdom Oral mucositis prevention or treatmentRecommended / permittedAllows the procedure with standard arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit; efficacy evidence is adequate in quality and quantity. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention or treatment
- Strength as reported
- Procedure may be used under standard arrangements
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Radiotherapy- or chemotherapy-related oral mucositis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Interventional/procedure guidance; it is not phrased as a universal first-line treatment requirement.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- United Kingdom
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: NICE. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Reviewed edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 1.1
Evidence on efficacy is adequate in quality and quantity
Source excerpt · Recommendation 1.1Statement OM-NICE
-
Document: Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS) Year: 2015Country: France Oral mucositis prevention: quoted MASCC guidanceMention onlyThe informational slide reproduces MASCC 2014: recommended in intensive-chemotherapy settings and suggested for head/neck RT without concurrent chemotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: quoted MASCC guidance
- Strength as reported
- MASCC 2014 recommendation/suggestion reproduced; no independent AFSOS grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Intensive chemotherapy with/without total-body irradiation; head/neck RT without concurrent chemotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- An explicitly attributed reproduction of MASCC; not a second independent panel vote or a blanket recommendation for all chemotherapy.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Document
- Mucites et candidoses
- Country / scope
- France
AFSOS is the France-based Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support. France identifies the issuing body; Francophone does not mean France-only clinical applicability.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- Validated 11 December 2015
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Slide / PDF p. 13, Point sur les autres moyens de prévention
- Document notes
- Slide 13 is explicitly an informational synthesis reproducing MASCC 2014. The local snapshot filename is historical extraction naming; the document's printed date is 2015.
cette planche constitue une synthèse à titre d’information
Source excerpt · Slide / PDF p. 13, Point sur les autres moyens de préventionStatement OM-AFSOS-2015
-
Document: ESMO Year: 2015Country: Europe Oral mucositis prevention: HSCTRecommended / permittedRecommends LLLT to prevent oral mucositis in HSCT conditioning using the specified regimen. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: HSCT
- Strength as reported
- Recommends
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE II
- Population / setting
- High-dose chemotherapy conditioning for HSCT, with or without total body irradiation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The 2015 ESMO document adopts earlier MASCC/ISOO guidance; do not present it as a new independent evidence base.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: ESMO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2015 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, recommendation 3
- Document notes
- Mucositis recommendations explicitly draw on the then-current MASCC/ISOO guidance; these are not independent patient data.
be used to *prevent* oral mucositis in patients receiving HSCT
Source excerpt · Table 2, recommendation 3Statement OM-ESMO-HSCT
-
Document: ESMO Year: 2015Country: Europe Oral mucositis prevention: radiotherapy without chemotherapyMay considerSuggests LLLT to prevent oral mucositis in head and neck radiotherapy without chemotherapy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention: radiotherapy without chemotherapy
- Strength as reported
- Suggests
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE III
- Population / setting
- Head and neck radiotherapy without concomitant chemotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Older ESMO statement; newer MASCC/ISOO guidance is stronger for this setting.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: ESMO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2015 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 3, suggestion 3
- Document notes
- Mucositis recommendations explicitly draw on the then-current MASCC/ISOO guidance; these are not independent patient data.
low-level laser therapy (wavelength ∼632.8 nm)
Source excerpt · Table 3, suggestion 3Statement OM-ESMO-RT
-
Document: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) task force Year: 2008Country: United States Oral mucositis preventionMention onlyHistoricalThe 2008 NCCN Task Force report reviews preventive LLLT evidence and cites the 2006 MASCC suggestion in transplantation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral mucositis prevention
- Strength as reported
- No current NCCN CPG grade inferred
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- HSCT and head/neck radiotherapy settings discussed
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Historical task-force report, not verification of a current NCCN Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement. Do not count the quoted MASCC statement as an independent panel vote.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) task force. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2008 task force report
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Low-Level Laser Therapy section
- Document notes
- The report's PBM discussion is not treated as a current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines recommendation.
A preventive role for LLLT has been investigated in 2 settings
Source excerpt · Low-Level Laser Therapy sectionStatement OM-NCCN-HISTORICAL
-
-
Oral ulcers in dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa
-
Document: International EB oral-health guideline group; DEBRA International-supported Year: 2020Country: International Supportive evidence statementThe guideline describes improvements in pain and lesion size in a small combined-treatment pilot. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral ulcers in dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa
- Strength as reported
- No isolated LLLT recommendation or grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Seven-patient pilot of cord-blood platelet gel plus LLLT, discussed in an oral-care guideline
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Case-series evidence with a co-intervention; it cannot establish the independent effect of PBM or a generally effective EB regimen.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral care
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International EB oral-health guideline group; DEBRA International-supported. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2020 update of the 2012 oral-health guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- §3.1.7 Oral bullae and ulcerations
- Document notes
- The laser discussion includes a seven-patient pilot combining cord-blood platelet gel and LLLT; isolated PBM benefit cannot be inferred.
cord blood platelet gel (CBPG) and low‐level laser therapy (LLLT)
Source excerpt · §3.1.7 Oral bullae and ulcerationsStatement EB-ORAL-LESIONS
-
-
Oral wound healing
-
Document: FDI World Dental Federation Year: 2024Country: International Oral wound healing: general PBM mentionSupportive evidence statementThe policy context lists improved wound healing during PBM among possible advantages of dental laser use. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Oral wound healing: general PBM mention
- Strength as reported
- No PBM-specific treatment grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- General context in a laser education / training / safety policy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- FDI's policy concerns education, training and safety; it does not give a condition-specific clinical PBM recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral care
- Document
- Lasers in Dentistry
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: FDI World Dental Federation. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Adopted September 2024, Istanbul
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Context paragraph
- Document notes
- Policy scope is laser education, training and safety. PBM wound-healing benefit appears in the context paragraph, without a condition-specific treatment grade.
improvement of wound healing during photobiomodulation
Source excerpt · Context paragraphStatement WOUND-FDI
-
-
Osteoarthritis (multiple joints)
-
Document: NICE Year: 2022Country: United Kingdom OsteoarthritisRecommendation againstDo not offer laser therapy because benefit evidence is insufficient. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Do not offer
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient evidence of benefit
- Population / setting
- People with osteoarthritis; electrotherapy modalities including laser
- Intervention
- Laser therapy (source terminology)
- Qualification
- This is an explicit recommendation against offering, not merely an absence of a recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- United Kingdom
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: NICE. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Reviewed edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- NG226 recommendation 1.3.9
Do not offer any of the following electrotherapy treatments
Source excerpt · NG226 recommendation 1.3.9Statement OA-NICE
-
Document: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Year: 2019Country: International Hip and polyarticular osteoarthritisRecommendation againstSupplementary Table 8 strongly recommends against laser therapy for hip and polyarticular OA. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hip and polyarticular osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Strong recommendation against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Hip or polyarticular OA across listed comorbidity groups
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; class unspecified in recommendation table
- Qualification
- This is the panel's recommendation and rationale; it is not generalized to all knee OA or presented as an independently proven biological conclusion.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text and official supplements
- Location in source
- Official Supplementary Table 8; Laser Therapy row
- Document notes
- Official Supplementary Table 5 differentiates knee-OA subgroups; Table 8 strongly advises against laser for hip/polyarticular OA and against laser acupuncture. Level 3 has 40–59% in favor and is not treated as positive consensus. The recommendation tables do not specify a low-level-only device class.
- Source issue
The main article does not show all intervention ratings. Official Supplementary Tables 5 and 8 distinguish knee subgroups, hip/polyarticular laser therapy and laser acupuncture. Table 5 merges GI/CV columns; laser also appears at Level 3 for frailty.
The original DOCX table cells, merged columns and vote rubric were read directly. Level 3 (40–59% in favor) is not classified as a positive consensus. No blanket strong-against recommendation is assigned to every knee-OA subgroup.
Treatments that were Strongly Recommended Against
Source excerpt · Official Supplementary Table 8; Laser Therapy rowStatement OA-OARSI-HIP-POLY
-
Document: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Year: 2019Country: International Knee, hip or polyarticular OA: laser acupunctureRecommendation againstThe guideline strongly recommends against laser acupuncture. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee, hip or polyarticular OA: laser acupuncture
- Strength as reported
- Strong recommendation against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser acupuncture across knee, hip and polyarticular OA and comorbidity groups
- Intervention
- Laser acupuncture
- Qualification
- Laser acupuncture is a separate intervention from the table's generic laser-therapy category.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 guideline
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text and official supplements
- Location in source
- Official Supplementary Table 8; Laser Acupuncture row
- Document notes
- Official Supplementary Table 5 differentiates knee-OA subgroups; Table 8 strongly advises against laser for hip/polyarticular OA and against laser acupuncture. Level 3 has 40–59% in favor and is not treated as positive consensus. The recommendation tables do not specify a low-level-only device class.
- Source issue
The main article does not show all intervention ratings. Official Supplementary Tables 5 and 8 distinguish knee subgroups, hip/polyarticular laser therapy and laser acupuncture. Table 5 merges GI/CV columns; laser also appears at Level 3 for frailty.
The original DOCX table cells, merged columns and vote rubric were read directly. Level 3 (40–59% in favor) is not classified as a positive consensus. No blanket strong-against recommendation is assigned to every knee-OA subgroup.
Laser Acupuncture
Source excerpt · Official Supplementary Table 8; Laser Acupuncture rowStatement OA-OARSI-LASER-ACUP
-
Document: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) Year: 2018Country: Netherlands Hip or knee osteoarthritisRecommendation againstRecommends not offering LLLT, despite acknowledging a possible small adjunctive function effect in very-low-certainty knee evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hip or knee osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Do not offer; strongly discouraged
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Very low (knee evidence); effect in hip OA unknown
- Population / setting
- Hip/knee OA; improving physical function
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Preserve the unfavorable recommendation alongside the source's qualified favorable evidence signal.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- KNGF-richtlijn Artrose heup-knie
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2018 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Explanatory note 26; PDF pp. 49–50
- Document notes
- Dutch full practice guideline and explanatory note 26; a small possible adjunctive effect is acknowledged but the recommendation remains against.
Bied geen behandeling met low level laser therapie
Source excerpt · Explanatory note 26; PDF pp. 49–50Statement OA-KNGF
-
Document: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Year: 2018Country: Australia Knee and hip osteoarthritisRecommendation againstSuggests not offering laser electrotherapy for knee or hip osteoarthritis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Knee and hip osteoarthritis
- Strength as reported
- Conditional against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low for knee laser; very low for hip laser
- Population / setting
- Knee and/or hip osteoarthritis
- Intervention
- Laser electrotherapy
- Qualification
- The guideline's low and very low certainty categories depend on joint and modality; preserve these distinctions.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal / primary care
- Country / scope
- Australia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2018 second edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary recommendations; Other electrotherapy – Knee and/or hip; matching official web chapter
We suggest not offering electrotherapy modalities
Source excerpt · Summary recommendations; Other electrotherapy – Knee and/or hip; matching official web chapterStatement OA-RACGP
-
-
Osteoradionecrosis prevention
-
Document: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO Year: 2024Country: International Insufficient / conflicting evidenceAbstract onlyNo recommendation was possible for PBM to prevent osteoradionecrosis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Osteoradionecrosis prevention
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation possible
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This statement concerns prevention; it does not establish efficacy for treatment of existing necrosis.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral surgery
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Recommendations
No recommendation was possible
Source excerpt · Abstract, RecommendationsStatement ORN-ASCO
-
-
Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy
-
Document: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies) Year: 2021Country: Japan Insufficient / conflicting evidenceFormally gives no recommendation because evidence is low quality, while its narrative describes possible temporary adjunctive analgesia. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation; 100% agreement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C (low)
- Population / setting
- Adjunctive analgesia in PDPN
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The narrative and formal no-recommendation rating are both retained. Neither possible adjunctive benefit nor lack of serious events establishes a strong efficacy or universal safety recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Neurology
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition; official public main-guideline PDF
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ P-6-3, printed pp. 256–257 / PDF pp. 258–259
- Document notes
- Public society-hosted PDF contains the main recommendations through printed p. 276; the complete print book also has supplementary material. Japanese no-recommendation wording is retained, even where the narrative describes possible adjunctive benefit. The shoulder-stiffness chapter concerns katakori, not adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff disease.
- Source issue
The PDPN narrative describes temporary adjunctive benefit, while the formal LLLT rating is no recommendation, C/low. The general physical-modalities rating is grouped.
Formal direction follows no recommendation; possible narrative benefit and group scope remain visible. Agreement percentages are not treatment response rates.
PDPN の痛みに対する補助的鎮痛法として有用である
Source excerpt · CQ P-6-3, printed pp. 256–257 / PDF pp. 258–259Statement PDN-JAPAN-2021
-
Document: American Academy of Neurology / AANEM / AAPM&R Year: 2011Country: United States Painful diabetic neuropathyRecommendation againstHistoricalAdvises probably not considering low-intensity laser for painful diabetic neuropathy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Painful diabetic neuropathy
- Strength as reported
- Level B; should probably not be considered
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Single Class I study
- Population / setting
- Pain treatment in diabetic neuropathy; historical guideline
- Intervention
- Low-intensity laser treatment
- Qualification
- Retired 2011 guideline. Class I is the source study classification, not a new GRADE rating; the later oral/topical update does not reappraise laser.
- Specialty in collection
- Neurology
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Neurology / AANEM / AAPM&R. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2011 guideline; publisher marks RETIRED
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Nonpharmacologic treatment / Recommendations, item 2
- Document notes
- Level B is a recommendation against low-intensity laser. The 2022 update focuses on oral/topical treatments and must not be presented as a new appraisal or reaffirmation of laser.
low-intensity laser treatment, and Reiki therapy should probably not be considered
Source excerpt · Nonpharmacologic treatment / Recommendations, item 2Statement PDN-AAN-2011
-
-
Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia / hand-foot syndrome
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia / hand-foot syndrome
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia / hand-foot syndrome
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.10.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Palmar-Plantar
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.10.1Statement WALT22-HFS
-
-
Patellofemoral pain
-
Document: Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of APTA Year: 2019Country: United States Recommendation againstAdvises against biophysical agents, including therapeutic laser, for patellofemoral pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Patellofemoral pain
- Strength as reported
- B (grouped biophysical-agent recommendation)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Patients with patellofemoral pain; therapeutic laser among biophysical agents
- Intervention
- Therapeutic laser within grouped biophysical agents
- Qualification
- The B grade applies to the grouped recommendation; laser-specific high certainty is not inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of APTA. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 3 and 42; Interventions – Biophysical agents
- Document notes
- Published final text retrieved from IFSPT.
Clinicians should not use biophysical agents
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 3 and 42; Interventions – Biophysical agentsStatement PFP-APTA
-
-
Peripheral neuropathy
-
Document: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.) Year: 2025Country: International Supportive evidence statementAbstract onlyThe expert consensus identifies PBM as an effective treatment option for peripheral neuropathy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Peripheral neuropathy
- Strength as reported
- Expert-panel consensus; no indication-specific strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult medical / dermatologic applications as stated in the abstract
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Condition and cause of neuropathy are not specified in the abstract. Published in JAAD; no AAD organizational endorsement verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / multidisciplinary consensus
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract and author-repository abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Results
- Document notes
- Publication in JAAD does not establish an American Academy of Dermatology organizational endorsement. Indication-specific grades were not available in the abstract.
peripheral neuropathy
Source excerpt · Abstract, ResultsStatement JAAD-NEUROPATHY
-
-
Persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain (PIDAP)
-
Document: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies) Year: 2021Country: Japan Insufficient / conflicting evidenceMentions LLLT research in primary chronic orofacial pain but identifies no established PIDAP-specific treatment or targeted efficacy studies. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Persistent idiopathic dentoalveolar pain (PIDAP)
- Strength as reported
- Narrative answer; no separate LLLT grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- PIDAP as defined in ICOP 2020
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Effects in broader or older atypical facial-pain populations cannot automatically be assigned to ICOP-defined PIDAP.
- Specialty in collection
- Oral medicine / neurology
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition; official public main-guideline PDF
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ M-4-4, printed p. 209 / PDF p. 211
- Document notes
- Public society-hosted PDF contains the main recommendations through printed p. 276; the complete print book also has supplementary material. Japanese no-recommendation wording is retained, even where the narrative describes possible adjunctive benefit. The shoulder-stiffness chapter concerns katakori, not adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff disease.
PIDAP に特定した治療効果の研究は未だ報告がない
Source excerpt · CQ M-4-4, printed p. 209 / PDF p. 211Statement PIDAP-JAPAN-2021
-
-
Plantar fasciitis
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2026Country: United States Insufficient / conflicting evidenceThe summary table and LLLT section classify this as no recommendation; the rationale describes conflicting LLLT studies. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Plantar fasciitis
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic plantar fasciitis, as stated in the LLLT heading
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Source wording inconsistency: the section's opening sentence says low-dose radiation (radiotherapy), despite the LLLT heading and rationale. Retained with this explicit flag.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Ankle and Foot Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 29 January 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Summary table; PDF p. 304, LLLT heading and rationale
- Document notes
- The chronic-Achilles positive recommendation is restricted to selected patients after other treatments; plantar-fasciitis opening sentence has a modality inconsistency recorded at row level.
- Source issue
The LLLT section opening sentence says low-dose radiation (radiotherapy). The LLLT heading, summary table and rationale classify LLLT as no recommendation.
Retained as no recommendation from the table/heading/rationale; the wording inconsistency is displayed on the row. No radiotherapy recommendation is inferred.
There are two moderate-quality studies providing conflicting results for the use of LLLT.
Source excerpt · Summary table; PDF p. 304, LLLT heading and rationaleStatement HEEL-ACOEM
-
Document: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Year: 2023Country: United States Acute or chronic plantar fasciitisRecommended / permittedThe 2023 recommendation says clinicians should use LLLT within rehabilitation to reduce short-term pain. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute or chronic plantar fasciitis
- Strength as reported
- B
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute or chronic plantar fasciitis; short-term pain, within rehabilitation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Final published B grade verified. The recommendation concerns short-term pain and use within a rehabilitation program.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: APTA Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 revision
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Final published PDF p. 2; Interventions – Physical agents – Low-level laser therapy
- Document notes
- Final published 2023 PDF retrieved during expansion 02. The final B grade and short-term pain recommendation within rehabilitation are verified; the earlier draft-only flag is resolved.
Clinicians should use low-level laser therapy as part of a rehabilitation program
Source excerpt · Final published PDF p. 2; Interventions – Physical agents – Low-level laser therapyStatement HEEL-APTA
-
-
Post-herpetic neuralgia
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2026Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProvides expert consensus PBM guidance for post-herpetic neuralgia. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Post-herpetic neuralgia
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE II (authors' classification)
- Population / setting
- Post-herpetic neuralgia within the paper's orofacial neuropathic-pain scope
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Keep the paper's orofacial scope; do not generalize to every neuropathic pain disorder.
- Specialty in collection
- Orofacial pain / PBM position paper
- Document
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain—WALT Position Paper 2026
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.3.3; Table 8
- Document notes
- Distinguishes BMS clinical practice guidance from expert consensus for trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia.
Post-Herpetic Neuralgia
Source excerpt · Section 4.3.3; Table 8Statement WALT26-PHN
-
-
Post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2026Country: International Insufficient / conflicting evidenceInsufficient condition-specific clinical evidence prevents a WALT recommendation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation possible
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Condition-specific PBM use
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Neither absence of a recommendation nor a PBM position paper title constitutes an endorsement.
- Specialty in collection
- Orofacial pain / PBM position paper
- Document
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain—WALT Position Paper 2026
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.3.4
- Document notes
- Distinguishes BMS clinical practice guidance from expert consensus for trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia.
Post-Traumatic Trigeminal
Source excerpt · Section 4.3.4Statement WALT26-PTTN
-
-
Postoperative wound healing
-
Document: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council Year: 2024Country: Russia Postoperative wound healing after lip-cancer surgeryRecommended / permittedThe guideline recommends low-intensity laser to improve postoperative wound healing. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Postoperative wound healing after lip-cancer surgery
- Strength as reported
- C (Russian recommendation system)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 4 (Russian evidence system)
- Population / setting
- Postoperative rehabilitation after malignant lip neoplasm surgery
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Read from full guideline reproduction. C/4 are the source's grades and are not equated with GRADE. No general claim about oncologic safety is inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Russia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 national guideline; ID 553_2; review due by 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full-text guideline reproduction
- Location in source
- Rehabilitation, stage I after surgery; reference 72
- Document notes
- Read from complete guideline reproduction. Bibliographic ID, year and issuing bodies verified. Grades are the Russian source's own system. The document also mentions intravenous laser blood irradiation; that distinct intervention is excluded from PBM rows.
С целью улучшения заживления послеоперационной раны
Source excerpt · Rehabilitation, stage I after surgery; reference 72Statement LIP-RUSSIA-WOUND
-
-
Postsurgical or traumatic oral pain; cavity preparation
-
Document: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) Year: 2022Country: United States Supportive evidence statementThe policy says PBM may reduce postsurgical/traumatic oral pain and pain during cavity preparation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Postsurgical or traumatic oral pain; cavity preparation
- Strength as reported
- No PBM-specific recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Pediatric oral pain; nonthermal PBM discussion
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Narrative possibility, not a graded clinical recommendation. Subsequent discussion of hard-tissue laser analgesia involves additional laser types and mechanisms.
- Specialty in collection
- Pediatric dentistry
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Latest revision 2022; retrieved in the 2025 Reference Manual
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 3 / printed p. 143, Background
- Document notes
- Society policy with narrative PBM applications. The general laser policy is not a formal PBM-specific graded clinical practice guideline.
may reduce postsurgical or traumatic oral pain
Source excerpt · PDF p. 3 / printed p. 143, BackgroundStatement PAIN-AAPD
-
-
Pressure ulcers / injuries
-
Document: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.) Year: 2025Country: International Decubitus / pressure ulcersSupportive evidence statementAbstract onlyThe expert consensus identifies PBM as an effective treatment option for decubitus / pressure ulcers. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Decubitus / pressure ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Expert-panel consensus; no indication-specific strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult medical / dermatologic applications as stated in the abstract
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Published in JAAD; no AAD organizational endorsement verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / multidisciplinary consensus
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract and author-repository abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Results
- Document notes
- Publication in JAAD does not establish an American Academy of Dermatology organizational endorsement. Indication-specific grades were not available in the abstract.
decubitus ulcers
Source excerpt · Abstract, ResultsStatement JAAD-PRESSURE
-
Document: Wound Healing Society Year: 2023Country: International Pressure ulcersMay considerLaser may improve pressure-ulcer healing when combined with traditional treatment. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pressure ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Guideline 7b.5; Level III
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level III as reported by WHS
- Population / setting
- Pressure ulcer healing in conjunction with traditional therapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The guideline calls for further randomized research; Level III is its own system, not a GRADE label.
- Specialty in collection
- Wound care
- Country / scope
- International
WHS describes itself as the premier international organization for wound healing science and clinical practice. The society scope is used rather than its US administrative base.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- 2023 update; journal issue 2024
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Guideline 7b.5 (new), Principle
- Document notes
- The article was first published in 2023; it appears in a 2024 issue.
Laser therapy may result in improvement in pressure ulcer healing
Source excerpt · Guideline 7b.5 (new), PrincipleStatement PU-WHS
-
Document: Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) Year: 2016Country: Canada Stalled but healable pressure injuriesRecommendation againstHistoricalThe historical RNAO recommendation says not to consider laser for speeding closure of stalled but healable pressure injuries. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Stalled but healable pressure injuries
- Strength as reported
- Not recommended; no laser-specific grade verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- 2016 recommendation 3.6; speeding pressure-injury closure
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; source class unspecified
- Qualification
- The wording belongs to the superseded 2016 guideline, not the 2024 recommendation column; no current 2024 PBM direction is inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Wound care
- Document
- Assessment and Management of Pressure Injuries for the Interprofessional Team, Third Edition
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2016 third edition; superseded by fourth edition 2024
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Historical recommendation in official 2024 comparison
- Location in source
- 2016 recommendation 3.6 reproduced in official 2024 comparison, PDF p. 14
- Document notes
- The 2016 laser wording is explicitly reproduced in the 2024 official comparison document, p. 14. This is not classified as a 2024 laser recommendation.
- Source issue
The 2024 official comparison reproduces the 2016 recommendation against laser in a historical column; it is not the current 2024 recommendation text.
The record is dated 2016, marked superseded/historical and verified at official historical-reproduction depth. A 2024 PBM therapeutic direction is not inferred.
laser therapy (not recommended)
Source excerpt · 2016 recommendation 3.6 reproduced in official 2024 comparison, PDF p. 14Statement PRESSURE-RNAO-2016
-
Document: NPUAP / EPUAP / PPPIA Year: 2014Country: International Pressure ulcersRecommendation againstHistoricalLaser is not recommended for routine pressure-ulcer treatment because evidence is insufficient to support or refute it. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pressure ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Not recommended for routine use; recommendation symbol not interpreted
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C
- Population / setting
- Pressure-ulcer treatment; routine use
- Intervention
- Laser therapy, including low-level approaches in the evidence discussion
- Qualification
- Historical 2014 edition, superseded by the 2019 edition already in the collection. The strength-of-recommendation glyph is not converted into a numeric or strong/weak grade.
- Specialty in collection
- Wounds
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: NPUAP / EPUAP / PPPIA. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2014 edition; later 2019 edition exists
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 214 / printed p. 212; Laser recommendation 1
- Document notes
- Current 2019/2025 laser wording was not verified; preserve as historical rather than current guidance.
laser therapy is not recommended for routine use at this time
Source excerpt · PDF p. 214 / printed p. 212; Laser recommendation 1Statement PRESSURE-NPUAP-2014
-
-
Pronator syndrome
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended; the source identifies insufficient evidence. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Pronator syndrome
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic pronator syndrome
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Elbow Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 144
- Document notes
- Newer version used instead of the 2012 guideline quoted by insurer policies.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for acute, subacute, or chronic pronator syndrome.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 144Statement PRONATOR-ACOEM
-
-
Radial nerve entrapment / radial tunnel syndrome
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radial nerve entrapment / radial tunnel syndrome
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic radial nerve entrapment
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Elbow Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 155
- Document notes
- Newer version used instead of the 2012 guideline quoted by insurer policies.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for acute, subacute, or chronic radial nerve entrapment
Source excerpt · PDF p. 155Statement RADIAL-ACOEM
-
-
Radiation dermatitis
-
Document: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.) Year: 2025Country: International Acute radiation dermatitisSupportive evidence statementAbstract onlyThe expert consensus identifies PBM as an effective treatment option for acute radiation dermatitis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute radiation dermatitis
- Strength as reported
- Expert-panel consensus; no indication-specific strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult medical / dermatologic applications as stated in the abstract
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Abstract does not distinguish prevention from treatment or specify the cancer site. Published in JAAD; no AAD organizational endorsement verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / multidisciplinary consensus
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract and author-repository abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Results
- Document notes
- Publication in JAAD does not establish an American Academy of Dermatology organizational endorsement. Indication-specific grades were not available in the abstract.
acute radiation dermatitis
Source excerpt · Abstract, ResultsStatement JAAD-RADIATION
-
Document: ESTRO Radiation Therapists Committee Year: 2025Country: Europe Prevention of higher-grade radiation dermatitisMay considerPBM or low-level laser may be used to prevent higher grades of radiation-induced dermatitis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Prevention of higher-grade radiation dermatitis
- Strength as reported
- Conditional recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- QoE L2
- Population / setting
- Radiation-induced dermatitis prevention; much of supporting PBM evidence is from breast irradiation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Prevention is distinct from treatment of an established reaction; retain the evidence's breast-cancer emphasis.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- Europe
Recommendations are issued on behalf of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology RTT Committee by an international writing group. Europe denotes the issuing society, not an exclusive clinical-use boundary.
- Edition / status
- 2025 recommendations
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 5; General recommendations / Prevention
- Document notes
- The recommendation concerns prevention of higher-grade radiodermatitis; key supporting PBM studies concern breast irradiation.
Photo-biomodulation or low-level laser therapy may be used to prevent higher grades of RID
Source excerpt · Table 5; General recommendations / PreventionStatement RD-ESTRO-PREVENT
-
Document: Cancer Institute NSW / eviQ Year: 2025Country: Australia Prevention of radiation-induced dermatitisSupportive evidence statementDescribes PBMT as an emerging prevention strategy and summarizes evidence of less moderate-to-severe dermatitis and fewer treatment interruptions. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Prevention of radiation-induced dermatitis
- Strength as reported
- Emerging prevention strategy; no separate eviQ PBM grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Prevention during radiotherapy; evidence discussion includes breast and head/neck studies
- Intervention
- PBMT / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This resource cites other guidelines and a review. It is not an independent PBM-only graded recommendation or support for treating established dermatitis.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology supportive care
- Country / scope
- Australia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Cancer Institute NSW / eviQ. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 7; change log 22 September 2025; review due June 2029
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Management / prevention / Photo-biomodulation (low-level laser) therapy
- Document notes
- Issued clinical supportive-care resource, distinguished from a separately graded CPG. The prevention section describes PBMT as emerging and cites MASCC and a meta-analysis; it does not supply a separate eviQ PBM grade. Hair-removal laser advice is unrelated and excluded.
as an emerging strategy to prevent higher-grade RID
Source excerpt · Management / prevention / Photo-biomodulation (low-level laser) therapyStatement RD-EVIQ-PREVENT
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany Radiation dermatitis preventionMay considerPBM may be used for radiation dermatitis prevention. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation dermatitis prevention
- Strength as reported
- Grade 0 (open recommendation); strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 2
- Population / setting
- Radiotherapy-associated dermatitis prevention; supporting studies mainly breast irradiation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 11.59; PDF p. 480
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
kann zur Prophylaxe der Radiodermatitis angewendet werden
Source excerpt · 11.59; PDF p. 480Statement S3-SUPPORT-RD-PREV
-
Document: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council Year: 2024Country: Russia Radiation dermatitis prevention in lip-cancer treatmentRecommended / permittedRecommends low-intensity laser throughout RT to prevent radiation dermatitis greater than grade 2. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation dermatitis prevention in lip-cancer treatment
- Strength as reported
- B (Russian recommendation system)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 2 (Russian evidence system)
- Population / setting
- Throughout RT; prevention of dermatitis above grade 2
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Do not generalize the source's population or grade to every irradiated cancer site.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- Russia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 national guideline; ID 553_2; review due by 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full-text guideline reproduction
- Location in source
- Rehabilitation during RT; reference 99
- Document notes
- Read from complete guideline reproduction. Bibliographic ID, year and issuing bodies verified. Grades are the Russian source's own system. The document also mentions intravenous laser blood irradiation; that distinct intervention is excluded from PBM rows.
профилактики развития радиоиндуцированного дерматита более 2 степени
Source excerpt · Rehabilitation during RT; reference 99Statement LIP-RUSSIA-RD-PREV
-
Document: MASCC Oncodermatology Study Group Year: 2023Country: International Acute radiation dermatitis prevention: head and neck cancerInsufficient / conflicting evidenceThe panel could not make a recommendation for PBM to prevent acute radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer because consensus was not achieved. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute radiation dermatitis prevention: head and neck cancer
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation due to lack of consensus; 9/34 (26%) recommend
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Head and neck cancer; prevention of acute radiation dermatitis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Do not extend the positive breast-cancer prevention recommendation to head and neck cancer.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC Oncodermatology Study Group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 1, PDF p. 6, Laser therapy
Photobiomodulation or low-level laser therapy for head and neck cancer
Source excerpt · Table 1, PDF p. 6, Laser therapyStatement RD-MASCC-HNC-PREVENT
-
Document: MASCC Oncodermatology Study Group Year: 2023Country: International Acute radiation dermatitis prevention: breast cancerRecommended / permittedRecommends PBM / low-level laser for prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute radiation dermatitis prevention: breast cancer
- Strength as reported
- Consensus to recommend; 27/34 (79%)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- People with breast cancer receiving radiotherapy; prevention of acute radiation dermatitis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Scope is breast cancer prevention; not all cancer sites or treatment of established dermatitis.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC Oncodermatology Study Group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 4, prevention recommendations, Laser therapy
photobiomodulation or
Source excerpt · PDF p. 4, prevention recommendations, Laser therapyStatement RD-MASCC-PREVENT
-
Document: MASCC Oncodermatology Study Group Year: 2023Country: International Established acute radiation dermatitis treatmentRecommendation againstThe management consensus table lists PBM / low-level laser for established acute radiation dermatitis as not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Established acute radiation dermatitis treatment
- Strength as reported
- Not recommended; 28/33 (85%) would not recommend
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Treatment of established acute radiation dermatitis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A Delphi recommendation about clinical use, not proof of no biological effect. Distinct from the positive breast-cancer prevention recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: MASCC Oncodermatology Study Group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, PDF p. 9, Laser therapy
Photobiomodulation therapy or low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Table 2, PDF p. 9, Laser therapyStatement RD-MASCC-TREAT
-
Document: Sociedad Mexicana de Radioterapia (SOMERA) expert panel Year: 2022Country: Mexico Radiation dermatitis preventionInsufficient / conflicting evidencePBMT is an emerging intervention; the consensus requests more long-term research before recommending prophylactic use. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation dermatitis prevention
- Strength as reported
- Further research before recommendation; ungraded
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Prophylactic PBMT
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Does not establish ineffectiveness and is not a positive recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- Mexico
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Sociedad Mexicana de Radioterapia (SOMERA) expert panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Treatment / emerging approaches, before Conclusions
- Document notes
- PBMT is an emerging approach; more long-term research is requested before a prophylactic recommendation.
further research is needed on long-term effects
Source excerpt · Treatment / emerging approaches, before ConclusionsStatement RD-MEXICO-2022
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Acute radiation dermatitisExpert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Acute radiation dermatitis
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated acute radiation dermatitis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.4.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Acute radiation dermatitis
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.4.1Statement WALT22-DERMATITIS
-
Document: Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR) Year: 2020Country: United Kingdom Radiation dermatitis preventionRecommendation againstThe guideline explicitly does not recommend PBMT at that time, despite promising findings in conventionally fractionated breast irradiation. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation dermatitis prevention
- Strength as reported
- Not recommended at this time; ungraded PBMT statement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- 2020 UK guideline; uncertainty about modern hypofractionated breast RT and long-term outcomes
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Edition 2020, review scheduled for 2025; newer SCoR edition was not verified. ESTRO 2025 is a separate, later conditional positive statement.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Country / scope
- United Kingdom
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Second revised edition April 2020; stated review date 2025; newer edition not verified
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- §5.5.2; PDF p. 23 / printed p. 21
- Document notes
- The body explicitly does not recommend PBMT at that time, citing uncertainty about modern hypofractionation and long-term outcomes. Later ESTRO 2025 guidance differs.
these guidelines do not recommend the use of PBMT at this time
Source excerpt · §5.5.2; PDF p. 23 / printed p. 21Statement RD-SCOR-2020
-
Document: Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS) Year: 2014Country: France Skin toxicity with radiotherapy plus cetuximabMention onlyLow-energy laser is described as under evaluation in this combined-treatment setting. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Skin toxicity with radiotherapy plus cetuximab
- Strength as reported
- Under evaluation; no therapeutic recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Prevention and treatment in combined RT + cetuximab
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Investigation status is not an endorsement for prevention or treatment.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Document
- Toxicité cutanée radioinduite
- Country / scope
- France
AFSOS is the France-based Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support. France identifies the issuing body; Francophone does not mean France-only clinical applicability.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- Validated 12 December 2014; later recommendations from other organizations are available
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 12
- Document notes
- Low-energy laser is described as under evaluation. Pulsed-dye laser for telangiectasia is a separate intervention and is not treated as PBM.
le laser de basse énergie est en cours d’évaluation
Source excerpt · PDF p. 12Statement RD-AFSOS-CETUXIMAB
-
Document: Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS) Year: 2014Country: France Established grade I–II radiation dermatitisMention onlyLists low-energy laser as under evaluation in the grade I and II management slides. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Established grade I–II radiation dermatitis
- Strength as reported
- Under evaluation; no therapeutic recommendation grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Established acute grade I / II skin reaction
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Does not refer to the vascular pulsed-dye laser discussed later for telangiectasia.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / dermatology
- Document
- Toxicité cutanée radioinduite
- Country / scope
- France
AFSOS is the France-based Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support. France identifies the issuing body; Francophone does not mean France-only clinical applicability.
Country / scope source ↗ - Edition / status
- Validated 12 December 2014; later recommendations from other organizations are available
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 16–17
- Document notes
- Low-energy laser is described as under evaluation. Pulsed-dye laser for telangiectasia is a separate intervention and is not treated as PBM.
Le laser basse énergie est en cours d’évaluation.
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 16–17Statement RD-AFSOS-ESTABLISHED
-
-
Radiation-induced fibrosis
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation-induced fibrosis
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated radiation-induced fibrosis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.13.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
radiation-induced fibrosis
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.13.1Statement WALT22-FIBROSIS
-
-
Radiation-induced skin ulcers
-
Document: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF) Year: 2025Country: Germany May considerPBM may be considered for radiation-induced skin ulcers in individual cases. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiation-induced skin ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Grade 0 (open recommendation); strong consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE 3
- Population / setting
- Radiation-induced skin ulcers; selected individual cases
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- German grade 0 is an open / may-use recommendation, not zero evidence. Prevention and treatment settings are distinct.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (DKG / DKH / AWMF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Version 2.0, April 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- 11.73; PDF p. 491
- Document notes
- German original text distinguishes chemotherapy, HSCT, radiation-induced mucositis, dermatitis prevention and radiation-induced skin ulcers.
Zur Therapie radiogener Hautulzera
Source excerpt · 11.73; PDF p. 491Statement S3-SUPPORT-RAD-ULCER
-
-
Recurrent aphthous stomatitis
-
Document: AKOPOM; DGMKG; DGZMK with participating German medical societies Year: 2023Country: Germany Recurrent aphthous lesionsMay considerThe guideline presents laser as a therapeutic option with possible pain relief and faster healing, while stating that no standard laser application can be identified. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Recurrent aphthous lesions
- Strength as reported
- Therapeutic option; no PBM-only grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Recurrent aphthous lesions; mixed CO2, Nd:YAG and diode laser approaches
- Intervention
- Mixed laser modalities; LLLT among cited clinical evidence
- Qualification
- Mixed laser types and protocols; no standardized PBM-only regimen or formal laser-specific grade is verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral care
- Document
- Diagnostik und Therapieoptionen von Aphthen und aphthoiden Läsionen der Mund- und Rachenschleimhaut
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: AKOPOM; DGMKG; DGZMK with participating German medical societies. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- S2k long version April 2023; valid until April 2028
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Printed pp. 18–19; treatment pathway and commentary
- Document notes
- Mixed laser types are discussed; no standardized laser protocol is identified. The treatment-option wording is not presented as a standalone graded PBM recommendation.
ist eine therapeutische
Source excerpt · Printed pp. 18–19; treatment pathway and commentaryStatement APHTHAE-S2K
-
Document: Indian multidisciplinary expert consensus panel (Bhargava et al.) Year: 2023Country: India Supportive evidence statementThe expert consensus favorably discusses laser treatment, including diode low-level mode, for pain relief and healing time. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Recurrent aphthous stomatitis
- Strength as reported
- No laser-specific grade
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Aphthous pain / healing; mixed laser evidence
- Intervention
- Diode LLLT plus other laser modes
- Qualification
- Mixes ablative Nd:YAG, nonablative CO2 and diode low-level modes. The narrative evidence summary is not a PBM-specific graded recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / oral care
- Country / scope
- India
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Indian multidisciplinary expert consensus panel (Bhargava et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 expert consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Treatment narrative, paragraph on lasers
- Document notes
- Contains a favorable narrative on mixed laser modalities, including diode low-level mode; no laser-specific formal recommendation grade was verified.
diode laser (low-level laser treatment mode)
Source excerpt · Treatment narrative, paragraph on lasersStatement RAS-INDIA
-
-
Rheumatoid arthritis
-
Document: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group Year: 2022Country: Finland Rheumatoid arthritis: hand-joint symptomsSupportive evidence statementLaser may help hand-joint symptoms. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Rheumatoid arthritis: hand-joint symptoms
- Strength as reported
- Possible benefit
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C (Käypä hoito evidence grade)
- Population / setting
- Hand-joint symptoms in rheumatoid arthritis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- 2022 guideline links a 2015 evidence summary. This does not establish disease-modifying efficacy.
- Specialty in collection
- Finnish clinical guideline
- Document
- Nivelreuma
- Country / scope
- Finland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Under revision on source page; published 18 February 2022
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text and evidence summary
- Location in source
- Fysikaaliset hoidot; evidence summary nak08409
- Document notes
- Laser evidence summary dated 2015 remains linked from the 2022 guideline.
Laserhoito saattaa helpottaa käsiniveloireita
Source excerpt · Fysikaaliset hoidot; evidence summary nak08409Statement FI-RA
-
Document: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Year: 2022Country: United States Rheumatoid arthritis: thermal-modality groupMention onlyThe guideline conditionally recommends thermal modalities and lists laser therapy among examples. A PBM-specific recommendation was not verified. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Rheumatoid arthritis: thermal-modality group
- Strength as reported
- Conditional recommendation for thermal-modality group; no PBM-specific grade verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Very low; thermal-modality group
- Population / setting
- Rheumatoid arthritis; thermal modalities alongside DMARD-based care
- Intervention
- Laser therapy; unspecified type within thermal modalities
- Qualification
- Laser type is unspecified; the group's conditional recommendation and very low certainty must not be presented as a verified LLLT-only recommendation. Verified from an authorized guideline summary.
- Specialty in collection
- Rheumatology
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 guideline; publication 2023
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Licensed guideline summary
- Location in source
- Intervention definitions: Thermal modalities; Recommendations
- Document notes
- Authorized Guideline Central summary verifies that unspecified laser therapy appears among thermal modalities. A laser-only or PBM-specific recommendation is not established.
- Source issue
Laser therapy is one example in the thermal-modality group, without a verified laser type or PBM-specific recommendation.
Classified as mention only; the conditional group recommendation is not transferred to LLLT alone.
paraffin therapy, and laser therapy.
Source excerpt · Intervention definitions: Thermal modalities; RecommendationsStatement RA-ACR-THERMAL-MENTION
-
Document: Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) Year: 2019Country: Spain Rheumatoid arthritis: short-term painSupportive evidence statementThe guideline narrative states that low-power laser appears to reduce pain versus placebo and cites short-term symptomatic efficacy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Rheumatoid arthritis: short-term pain
- Strength as reported
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Symptomatic short-term treatment; comparison with placebo
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- No separate laser-specific prescription grade was verified. The document's printed edition is 2019.
- Specialty in collection
- Rheumatology
- Country / scope
- Spain
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2019 edition (printed in source)
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Printed p. 109; physical therapies
- Document notes
- Source discussion is cautiously positive for short-term symptoms; no separate graded laser recommendation was identified.
El láser de baja potencia parece conseguir una disminución
Source excerpt · Printed p. 109; physical therapiesStatement RA-SPAIN
-
Document: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) Year: 2018Country: Netherlands Recommendation againstRecommends not offering low-power laser and other listed non-exercise interventions. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Strength as reported
- Do not offer; strongly discouraged in rationale
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Very low (non-exercise interventions assessed)
- Population / setting
- Patients with rheumatoid arthritis; non-exercise physiotherapy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The very-low evidence rating concerns the reviewed non-exercise interventions; do not call it evidence of harm.
- Specialty in collection
- Rheumatology / rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2018 revision; newer than 2008 document
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 17, C.4; explanatory note 21, PDF p. 36
- Document notes
- Dutch full practice guideline and explanatory notes; reviewed in the source language.
laagvermogen lasertherapie
Source excerpt · PDF p. 17, C.4; explanatory note 21, PDF p. 36Statement RA-KNGF
-
Document: Ottawa Panel Year: 2004Country: Not stated Recommended / permittedHistoricalAbstract onlyThe Ottawa Panel abstract explicitly recommends LLLT among physical therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Strength as reported
- Not verified from abstract
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult rheumatoid arthritis
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Historical 2004 guideline; abstract-only verification. No laser-specific grade or detailed population restriction inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Rheumatology
- Country / scope
- Not stated
The retrieved abstract identifies the Ottawa Panel but does not establish its geographic remit. No country is assigned from the panel name or author affiliations alone.
- Edition / status
- Historical 2004 evidence base; current status not verified
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract; conclusion
- Document notes
- PubMed-indexed abstract retrieved from Europe PMC core metadata. Positive conclusion is explicit; no laser-specific grade inferred from unavailable full text.
Ottawa Panel recommends the use of low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Abstract; conclusionStatement RA-OTTAWA
-
-
Rotator cuff tendinopathy
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended for rotator cuff tendinopathy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Rotator cuff tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- Moderately Not Recommended, Evidence (B)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Moderate
- Population / setting
- Rotator cuff tendinopathies
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Shoulder Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 114
- Document notes
- Official California MTUS-linked copy. Recommendation, ACOEM evidence grade and confidence are separate fields.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathies.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 114Statement RC-ACOEM
-
Document: APTA-supported international guideline panel / Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Year: 2025Country: International Calcific rotator cuff tendinopathyMay considerLaser may be used alone or with active rehabilitation to reduce pain and disability in calcific tendinopathy. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Calcific rotator cuff tendinopathy
- Strength as reported
- C
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adults with calcific rotator cuff tendinopathy; pain and disability
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The positive recommendation is specifically calcific; it must not be generalized to all rotator cuff pain.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- International
The guideline states that an international steering committee developed it; it received Canadian and APTA funding. Labelled by the international development panel, not a single funding country.
- Edition / status
- 2025 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 31; PDF pp. 3 and 32
- Document notes
- Laser recommendation 31 concerns calcific tendinopathy.
Clinicians may use laser therapy alone
Source excerpt · Recommendation 31; PDF pp. 3 and 32Statement RC-APTA
-
-
Scarring alopecias
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Scarring alopecias: FFA, LPP, CCCAMay considerOffers a weak recommendation for selected scarring alopecias. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Scarring alopecias: FFA, LPP, CCCA
- Strength as reported
- Weak
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low/very low-quality
- Population / setting
- Frontal fibrosing alopecia; lichen planopilaris; central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 10
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Frontal fibrosing alopecia
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 10Statement CHINA-SCARRING
-
-
Scars
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Recommended / permittedRecommends PBM for scar management. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Scars
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate-quality
- Population / setting
- Scar management
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 9
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Scar
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 9Statement CHINA-SCARS
-
-
Shoulder pain
-
Document: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group Year: 2022Country: Finland Shoulder tendinopathy / impingementInsufficient / conflicting evidenceStates that few randomized studies exist and no clear benefit is established for laser and other physical modalities. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Shoulder tendinopathy / impingement
- Strength as reported
- No clear evidence of usefulness
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Shoulder impingement; electrical / laser physical modalities
- Intervention
- Laser among physical modalities
- Qualification
- Main guideline text is an evidence statement, not a separately graded laser recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Finnish clinical guideline
- Document
- Olkapään jännevaivat
- Country / scope
- Finland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- In force on source page; published 12 April 2022
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Fysikaaliset hoidot
Mitään selvää näyttöä näiden hoitomuotojen hyödyllisyydestä ei ole
Source excerpt · Fysikaaliset hoidotStatement FI-SHOULDER
-
Document: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Year: 2021Country: Canada Soft tissue shoulder painMay considerMay consider low-level laser for shoulder pain of any duration. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Soft tissue shoulder pain
- Strength as reported
- Clinicians may consider
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Shoulder pain of any duration within the guideline's soft-tissue scope
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Broader shoulder-pain scope than the 2025 rotator cuff calcific recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: a clinical practice guideline
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text, author reproduction
- Location in source
- Abstract recommendation c; recommendations for recent and persistent shoulder pain
- Document notes
- Full article reproduced by Chiro.org; bibliographic identity checked against PubMed.
for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Abstract recommendation c; recommendations for recent and persistent shoulder painStatement SHOULDER-OPTIMA
-
Document: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Year: 2021Country: Canada Persistent shoulder pain: laser acupunctureMay considerMay consider laser acupuncture for shoulder pain lasting more than 3 months. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Persistent shoulder pain: laser acupuncture
- Strength as reported
- Clinicians may consider
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Shoulder pain >3 months
- Intervention
- Laser acupuncture
- Qualification
- Delivery method differs from tissue-directed laser; this is the same guideline as the shoulder LLLT row.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Document
- Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: a clinical practice guideline
- Country / scope
- Canada
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text, author reproduction
- Location in source
- Abstract recommendation d; persistent shoulder pain recommendation
- Document notes
- Full article reproduced by Chiro.org; bibliographic identity checked against PubMed.
laser acupuncture
Source excerpt · Abstract recommendation d; persistent shoulder pain recommendationStatement SHOULDER-OPTIMA-ACUP
-
Document: Dutch Orthopaedic Association / multidisciplinary guideline group Year: 2014Country: Netherlands Subacromial pain syndromeSupportive evidence statementThe evidence section says laser of all types appears more effective for short-term pain than placebo or ultrasound. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Subacromial pain syndrome
- Strength as reported
- Level 3 evidence conclusion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Laser types combined; pain after 2–4 weeks versus placebo or ultrasound
- Intervention
- Low- and high-intensity laser types combined
- Qualification
- This is an evidence conclusion, not a separate strong laser prescription; includes high-intensity laser studies.
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Netherlands
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Dutch Orthopaedic Association / multidisciplinary guideline group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2014 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Other interventions, Level 3 evidence conclusion
- Document notes
- The laser statement is a Level 3 evidence conclusion about all laser types; not a standalone strong treatment recommendation.
Laser treatment (of all types) appears to be more effective
Source excerpt · Other interventions, Level 3 evidence conclusionStatement SHOULDER-DUTCH
-
-
Skin rejuvenation / photoaging
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Recommended / permittedRecommends PBM for skin rejuvenation / photoaging. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Skin rejuvenation / photoaging
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate-quality
- Population / setting
- Skin rejuvenation and photoaging
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 7
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Skin rejuvenation
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 7Statement CHINA-REJUVENATION
-
-
Structural, organic or neurological voice disorders
-
Document: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil) Year: 2025Country: Brazil Insufficient / conflicting evidenceThese PBM-use statements did not meet the expert consensus threshold. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Structural, organic or neurological voice disorders
- Strength as reported
- No consensus; CVC 0.52 / 0.57 / 0.48 / 0.43
- Evidence certainty as reported
- No GRADE efficacy rating
- Population / setting
- Behavioral dysphonia with laryngeal injury; organic or neurological dysphonia; head/neck-cancer sequelae
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Grouped here because all fall below the CVC 0.75 threshold. This does not establish inefficacy.
- Specialty in collection
- Voice / speech therapy
- Country / scope
- Brazil
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Seven speech-language pathology voice experts (Pontes et al.; Brazil). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 Delphi consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2, items 17–20
- Document notes
- CVC values measure agreement/content validity among seven experts; they are not clinical efficacy or GRADE certainty ratings. Non-consensus indications are retained.
I use PBM in cases of patients with dysphonia of neurological origin.
Source excerpt · Table 2, items 17–20Statement VOICE-ORGANIC-NOCONSENSUS
-
-
Temporomandibular disorders
-
Document: BMJ Rapid Recommendations international panel Year: 2023Country: International Chronic TMD-associated painRecommendation againstConditionally recommends against low-level laser alone or with co-interventions. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic TMD-associated pain
- Strength as reported
- Conditional recommendation against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Chronic TMD-associated pain lasting ≥3 months
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Different recommendation from the Japanese guideline; chronic pain scope and methodology should remain explicit.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / chronic pain
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: BMJ Rapid Recommendations international panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Abstract / Recommendations; conditional recommendations against
low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions)
Source excerpt · Abstract / Recommendations; conditional recommendations againstStatement TMD-BMJ
-
Document: Japanese Society for the Temporomandibular Joint Year: 2023Country: Japan May considerConditionally recommends LLLT, with additional considerations, alongside the guideline's main primary care options. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Temporomandibular disorders
- Strength as reported
- Conditional / weak; 2D
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Very low (abstract; Grade D)
- Population / setting
- Primary treatment of TMD in general practice
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The 2023 edition was published in English in 2025. Do not call it a strong recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / orofacial pain
- Document
- Clinical practice guidelines in primary treatment for temporomandibular disorders: 2023 edition
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese Society for the Temporomandibular Joint. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 guideline; English publication 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Abstract; sections 3.12–3.13; PDF pp. 1 and 6
- Document notes
- Separates guideline edition year from publication year.
LLLT be a conditional recommendation
Source excerpt · Abstract; sections 3.12–3.13; PDF pp. 1 and 6Statement TMD-JAPAN
-
Document: Korean medicine TMD guideline development group (Kim et al.) Year: 2023Country: South Korea May considerPhysical therapy in Korean medicine should be considered for symptom improvement; meridian LLLT is a component of the assessed therapy group. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Temporomandibular disorders
- Strength as reported
- B; grouped physical-therapy recommendation
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate; grouped recommendation; LLLT outcome assessments also moderate
- Population / setting
- Korean-medicine physical therapy, including meridian LLLT and TENS
- Intervention
- Meridian low-level laser therapy; grouped with TENS
- Qualification
- The B grade belongs to R15's physical-therapy group, not a standalone general PBM recommendation. The paper separately rates LLLT pain and mouth-opening evidence as moderate.
- Specialty in collection
- Dentistry / orofacial pain
- Country / scope
- South Korea
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Korean medicine TMD guideline development group (Kim et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 update
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- §3.7.1; R15; Meridian LLLT meta-analysis
- Document notes
- Recommendation R15 covers Korean medicine physical therapy including meridian LLLT and TENS; the grade is grouped, not a laser-only grade.
physical therapy in Korean medicine should be considered to improve symptoms
Source excerpt · §3.7.1; R15; Meridian LLLT meta-analysisStatement TMD-KOREA
-
Document: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group Year: 2021Country: Finland TMD-related muscle painSupportive evidence statementLow-level laser may relieve TMD muscle pain in short-term follow-up. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- TMD-related muscle pain
- Strength as reported
- Possible short-term benefit
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C (Käypä hoito evidence grade)
- Population / setting
- TMD-related muscle pain; short-term follow-up
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A cautious evidence statement; source page indicates the guideline is under revision.
- Specialty in collection
- Finnish clinical guideline
- Country / scope
- Finland
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim; Käypä hoito working group. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Under revision on source page; published 16 April 2021
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text and evidence summary
- Location in source
- Fysioterapia; evidence summary nak08036
Laserhoito (pienienergiainen, low-level) saattaa lievittää
Source excerpt · Fysioterapia; evidence summary nak08036Statement FI-TMD
-
-
Tinnitus
-
Document: American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Year: 2026Country: United States Tinnitus: low-level laser in research agendaMention onlyThe official research agenda names low-level laser and calls for further long-term safety, efficacy and clinical-setting research. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Tinnitus: low-level laser in research agenda
- Strength as reported
- Research agenda; therapeutic recommendation not verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- 2026 guideline update; future research into neuromodulation methods
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- This is a research-priority mention; neither recommendation for nor against clinical LLLT is inferred from the inaccessible full guideline.
- Specialty in collection
- Audiology / otolaryngology
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 update; official research-agenda page published 9 October 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Official update note only
- Location in source
- Research agenda item 27 (KAS 14); official page dated 9 October 2026
- Document notes
- The accessible official research agenda explicitly names low-level laser therapy; the complete therapeutic recommendation was not retrieved. Research-priority status is not a recommendation to treat.
low‐level laser therapy, and bimodal stimulation
Source excerpt · Research agenda item 27 (KAS 14); official page dated 9 October 2026Statement TINNITUS-AAOHNS-2026
-
Document: US Department of Veterans Affairs / Department of Defense Year: 2024Country: United States Recommendation againstSuggests against low-level laser therapy for tinnitus. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Tinnitus
- Strength as reported
- Weak against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Tinnitus management
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Do not reinterpret Weak against as evidence in favor.
- Specialty in collection
- Audiology / otolaryngology
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: US Department of Veterans Affairs / Department of Defense. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Reviewed edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Recommendation 21; PDF pp. 36 and 71–72
We suggest against low-level laser therapy
Source excerpt · Recommendation 21; PDF pp. 36 and 71–72Statement TINNITUS-VA
-
Document: German Society for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC) Year: 2021Country: Germany Chronic tinnitusRecommendation againstLow-level laser should not be practiced for chronic tinnitus. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Chronic tinnitus
- Strength as reported
- Recommendation against; strong consensus (100%)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- 2b; no evidence of efficacy (source's wording)
- Population / setting
- Chronic tinnitus
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The 2021 German guideline is available as a 2022 English article.
- Specialty in collection
- Audiology / otolaryngology
- Document
- S3 Guideline: Chronic Tinnitus
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: German Society for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 guideline; English publication 2022
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.1.8.7
Low-level laser therapy should not be practiced for chronic tinnitus
Source excerpt · Section 4.1.8.7Statement TINNITUS-S3
-
-
Trigeminal neuralgia
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2026Country: International Idiopathic trigeminal neuralgiaExpert protocol / consensusProvides expert consensus PBM guidance, rather than the paper's BMS-level clinical practice guideline. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- LoE II (authors' classification)
- Population / setting
- Idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Distinct recommendation category from BMS within the same paper.
- Specialty in collection
- Orofacial pain / PBM position paper
- Document
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain—WALT Position Paper 2026
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2026 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 4.3.2; Table 6
- Document notes
- Distinguishes BMS clinical practice guidance from expert consensus for trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia.
idiopathic TN
Source excerpt · Section 4.3.2; Table 6Statement WALT26-TN
-
Document: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies) Year: 2021Country: Japan Insufficient / conflicting evidenceGives no recommendation for LLLT in trigeminal neuralgia; evidence certainty is low. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Trigeminal neuralgia
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation; 85.0% agreement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- C (low)
- Population / setting
- Non-invasive non-drug treatment of trigeminal neuralgia
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- The 85% figure is agreement on no recommendation, not a response rate. Grades for decompression, radiosurgery or radiofrequency do not apply to LLLT.
- Specialty in collection
- Oral medicine / neurology
- Country / scope
- Japan
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Japanese multidisciplinary chronic-pain guideline working group (10 collaborating professional societies). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition; official public main-guideline PDF
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- CQ M-2-4, printed p. 201 / PDF p. 203, item 2a
- Document notes
- Public society-hosted PDF contains the main recommendations through printed p. 276; the complete print book also has supplementary material. Japanese no-recommendation wording is retained, even where the narrative describes possible adjunctive benefit. The shoulder-stiffness chapter concerns katakori, not adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff disease.
推奨度：推奨なし ［合意率85.0％］
Source excerpt · CQ M-2-4, printed p. 201 / PDF p. 203, item 2aStatement TN-JAPAN-2021
-
-
Trigger points and myofascial pain
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Insufficient / conflicting evidenceNo recommendation for or against LLLT because the evidence is conflicting. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Trigger points and myofascial pain
- Strength as reported
- No Recommendation, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level of confidence: Low
- Population / setting
- Trigger points / myofascial pain
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Shoulder Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF p. 662
- Document notes
- Official California MTUS-linked copy. Recommendation, ACOEM evidence grade and confidence are separate fields.
There is no recommendation for or against the use of low-level laser therapy for the treatment of trigger points/myofascial pain.
Source excerpt · PDF p. 662Statement MYOFASCIAL-ACOEM
-
-
Trismus
-
Document: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council Year: 2024Country: Russia Trismus after treatment of lip malignancyRecommended / permittedRecommends low-intensity laser over masticatory musculature and TMJ to address trismus. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Trismus after treatment of lip malignancy
- Strength as reported
- B (Russian recommendation system)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Level 2 (Russian evidence system)
- Population / setting
- Masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joint; correction of trismus
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Russian source grading; the recommendation is restricted to its cancer-rehabilitation context.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / rehabilitation
- Country / scope
- Russia
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Russian oncology/head-and-neck professional associations; approved by the Russian Ministry of Health scientific-practical council. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2024 national guideline; ID 553_2; review due by 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full-text guideline reproduction
- Location in source
- Rehabilitation after surgery / stage III; reference 79
- Document notes
- Read from complete guideline reproduction. Bibliographic ID, year and issuing bodies verified. Grades are the Russian source's own system. The document also mentions intravenous laser blood irradiation; that distinct intervention is excluded from PBM rows.
на область жевательной мускулатуры и височно-нижнечелюстной сустав
Source excerpt · Rehabilitation after surgery / stage III; reference 79Statement LIP-RUSSIA-TRISMUS
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Trismus
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated trismus
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.7.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Trismus
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.7.1Statement WALT22-TRISMUS
-
-
Ulnar neuropathy
-
Document: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Year: 2025Country: United States Recommendation againstLLLT is not recommended. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Ulnar neuropathy
- Strength as reported
- Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I)
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Acute, subacute or chronic ulnar neuropathy
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Specialty in collection
- Musculoskeletal
- Document
- Elbow Disorders
- Country / scope
- United States
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- Effective 14 July 2025
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- PDF pp. 173–174
- Document notes
- Newer version used instead of the 2012 guideline quoted by insurer policies.
Low-level laser therapy is not recommended for the treatment of acute, subacute, or chronic ulnar neuropathies.
Source excerpt · PDF pp. 173–174Statement ULNAR-ACOEM
-
-
Viral skin infections (including herpes)
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Recommended / permittedRecommends PBM for selected viral skin infections including herpes, with condition-specific regimens. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Viral skin infections (including herpes)
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- High-quality
- Population / setting
- Viral skin infections; condition-specific regimens in Question 11
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 11
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Viral skin infections
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 11Statement CHINA-VIRAL
-
-
Voice and speech alterations
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Expert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Voice and speech alterations
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated voice and speech alterations
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.9.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Voice and speech alterations
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.9.1Statement WALT22-VOICE
-
-
Vulvodynia / provoked vestibulodynia
-
Document: European vulval-guideline expert group / IUSTI-Europe Year: 2021Country: Europe Insufficient / conflicting evidenceStates that efficacy of low-level laser for vulvodynia has not been demonstrated. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Vulvodynia / provoked vestibulodynia
- Strength as reported
- No separate LLLT grade in the statement
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Vulvodynia treatment
- Intervention
- Low-level laser therapy; separate from fractional CO2 laser
- Qualification
- LLLT is explicitly named separately from fractional CO2 treatment. No laser-specific GRADE grade or proof of ineffectiveness for every later protocol is inferred.
- Specialty in collection
- Gynecology / sexual health
- Country / scope
- Europe
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: European vulval-guideline expert group / IUSTI-Europe. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 guideline; accepted and published 2022
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Vulvodynia / physical therapies; PDF page 14
- Document notes
- The vulvodynia section explicitly names low-level laser. Statements about CO2 laser, ultraviolet excimer laser and laser surgery elsewhere are different interventions and are excluded.
low-level laser therapy and radiofrequency for treating vulvodynia
Source excerpt · Vulvodynia / physical therapies; PDF page 14Statement VULVODYNIA-EUROPE-2021
-
-
Vulvovaginal dryness in breast-cancer endocrine therapy care
-
Document: SENORIF breast-cancer diagnostic and therapeutic reference group; hosted by Gustave Roussy Year: 2026Country: France Recommendation againstThe reference does not advise laser or a group of physical therapies explicitly including PBM because clear benefit has not been demonstrated; it advises specialist assessment. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Vulvovaginal dryness in breast-cancer endocrine therapy care
- Strength as reported
- Not advised; grouped physical therapies; ungraded
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Breast-cancer supportive care; vulvovaginal dryness
- Intervention
- PBM explicitly listed alongside laser, radiofrequency and lipofilling
- Qualification
- Regional breast-cancer guidance, not a blanket statement on all gynecological PBM or other cancer supportive-care uses.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / supportive care
- Country / scope
- France
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: SENORIF breast-cancer diagnostic and therapeutic reference group; hosted by Gustave Roussy. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- September 2026 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-16 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 27; PDF pp. 161–162
- Document notes
- Regional breast-cancer reference. Table 27 explicitly names PBM among physical therapies not advised for vulvovaginal dryness; the recommendation is not generalized to other indications.
photobiomodulation, lipofilling
Source excerpt · Table 27; PDF pp. 161–162Statement VAGINAL-SENORIF
-
-
Wound healing / chronic wounds
-
Document: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.) Year: 2025Country: China Wound healing and ulcersRecommended / permittedRecommends PBM for wound healing and ulcers under the panel's protocols. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Wound healing and ulcers
- Strength as reported
- Strong
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Moderate-quality
- Population / setting
- Wound healing / ulcers; adjunctive dermatologic protocols
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- These are the Chinese panel's published classifications, not a new independent certainty assessment or a universal consensus.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / Chinese expert consensus
- Country / scope
- China
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: Chinese dermatology expert consensus panel (35 experts; Bai et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus; published 2026
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Table 2 and Question 8
- Document notes
- Grades are the panel's reported grades. The article's main text and tables, rather than the added machine-generated FAQ, were used.
Wound healing and ulcers
Source excerpt · Table 2 and Question 8Statement CHINA-WOUNDS
-
Document: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.) Year: 2025Country: International Wound ulcers of multiple etiologiesSupportive evidence statementAbstract onlyThe expert consensus identifies PBM as an effective treatment option for wound ulcers of multiple etiologies. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Wound ulcers of multiple etiologies
- Strength as reported
- Expert-panel consensus; no indication-specific strength verified
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Population / setting
- Adult medical / dermatologic applications as stated in the abstract
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Abstract-level broad wording; no indication-specific protocol or certainty grade verified. Published in JAAD; no AAD organizational endorsement verified.
- Specialty in collection
- Dermatology / multidisciplinary consensus
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: International multidisciplinary expert panel (Maghfour et al.). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2025 consensus
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Abstract and author-repository abstract only
- Location in source
- Abstract, Results
- Document notes
- Publication in JAAD does not establish an American Academy of Dermatology organizational endorsement. Indication-specific grades were not available in the abstract.
wound ulcers due to multiple etiologies
Source excerpt · Abstract, ResultsStatement JAAD-WOUNDS
-
Document: German Society for Wound Healing and Wound Treatment (DGfW) / interdisciplinary S3 guideline panel Year: 2023Country: Germany Hard-to-heal chronic wounds: phototherapy / LLLT evidenceInsufficient / conflicting evidenceNo phototherapy recommendation was adopted because evidence was uncertain; LLLT-specific area-reduction evidence is rated very low. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Hard-to-heal chronic wounds: phototherapy / LLLT evidence
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation adopted; 100% consensus
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Low for mixed phototherapy complete healing; very low for LLLT area reduction
- Population / setting
- Chronic wounds due to PAD, diabetes or venous insufficiency; identified LLLT evidence from diabetic foot ulcers
- Intervention
- Mixed phototherapy; LLLT separately discussed
- Qualification
- Grouped phototherapy includes several light types; favorable pooled results did not become a positive recommendation.
- Specialty in collection
- Wound care
- Country / scope
- Germany
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: German Society for Wound Healing and Wound Treatment (DGfW) / interdisciplinary S3 guideline panel. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2023 revision
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 9.3.2 Phototherapie; printed p. 179
- Document notes
- Official DDG-hosted guideline PDF. Phototherapy section includes LED, low-level laser, high-intensity laser and filtered infrared; LLLT-specific evidence is separately identified.
Wegen unsicherer Evidenzgrundlage wurde keine Empfehlung verabschiedet
Source excerpt · Section 9.3.2 Phototherapie; printed p. 179Statement WOUND-S3-GERMAN
-
-
Xerostomia / salivary gland hypofunction
-
Document: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT) Year: 2022Country: International Xerostomia and hyposalivationExpert protocol / consensusProposes technical PBM parameters as expert consensus while explicitly stating that data are inadequate to provide clinical treatment guidelines. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Xerostomia and hyposalivation
- Strength as reported
- Expert consensus opinion
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient data for clinical treatment guidelines (explicit statement)
- Population / setting
- Cancer therapy-associated xerostomia and hyposalivation
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- A technical expert protocol is not a formal graded endorsement; the same explicit evidence limitation appears in each of these sections.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / PBM position paper
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2022 position paper
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Full text
- Location in source
- Section 3.3.2.1
- Document notes
- The paper distinguishes oral-mucositis clinical practice guidelines from expert technical consensus for other indications, explicitly citing inadequate data for clinical treatment guidelines for those other indications.
Xerostomia and hyposalivation
Source excerpt · Section 3.3.2.1Statement WALT22-XERO
-
Document: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO Year: 2021Country: International Radiotherapy-associated salivary gland hypofunction / xerostomiaInsufficient / conflicting evidenceEvidence is insufficient to recommend for or against low-level laser during head and neck radiotherapy to prevent hypofunction / xerostomia. Open source and details
- Condition / use as stated
- Radiotherapy-associated salivary gland hypofunction / xerostomia
- Strength as reported
- No recommendation for or against
- Evidence certainty as reported
- Insufficient evidence
- Population / setting
- During radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
- Intervention
- PBM / low-level laser therapy
- Qualification
- Do not transfer the positive mucositis prevention recommendation to xerostomia.
- Specialty in collection
- Oncology / oral care
- Country / scope
- International
Issuing organization or panel identified in the source: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO. The label describes the issuer or stated scope, not the nationality of individual authors or universal geographical applicability.
- Edition / status
- 2021 edition
- Source checked
- 2026-10-15 · Official recommendation summary
- Location in source
- Recommendation 1.7; official summary PDF pp. 2–3
- Document notes
- The official MASCC guideline summary was read.
Evidence remains insufficient for a recommendation for or against
Source excerpt · Recommendation 1.7; official summary PDF pp. 2–3Statement XERO-ASCO
-
No matching statements. Try a broader search or clear the filters.