We could have chosen not to display these last three figures. Yet they say what matters most: photobiomodulation is a real, active field, but still uneven depending on the indication. Some applications are well documented, others rest on trials that are too small or too heterogeneous. You deserve to know which is which before buying.
Not all studies are equal
Two markers are enough to read this page: the type of publication, and what its authors conclude. We display both on every entry, without sorting them to our advantage.
The type
A meta-analysis aggregates the results of several trials: it is the highest level. A systematic review surveys and assesses the literature. A randomised trial compares a treated group with a randomly drawn control group — the reference for establishing an effect.
The conclusion
favourable the authors conclude that there is a benefit. qualified possible effect, but limited evidence or protocols that are too heterogeneous. insufficient no sufficient evidence, or negative result.
By indication
What these studies do not say
A scientific publication concerns a specific device, a specific dose, a specific population. It does not say that a commercially available device will produce the same result for you.
Parameters matter as much as the technology
Two "660 nm" devices can deliver doses that differ tenfold. This is the primary reason for contradictory results between studies — and between users.
A statistical effect is not a felt effect
A significant difference across a group of 60 people may remain imperceptible on an individual level. Conversely, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of an effect.
These are wellbeing devices
We do not sell medical devices and we do not treat any illness. If you have a medical condition, that is something to settle with a doctor — not with a device seller.
We have read them
Our assistant has access to the entire corpus, not only the 64 summaries published here. Ask it what the literature says about your situation: it cites its sources.