A popular therapy among chiropractors who treat pets is low level laser or “cold laser” treatment. It is an impressive bit of showmanship to pull out a complex-looking device and with a serious expression wave a beam of light over a patient, but the evidence to suggest it is anything more than showmanship is weak at best.
An example of the enthusiasm, and irrationality, of some proponents of this treatment can be found at the joint web site of the International Association of Veterinary Chiropractors and American Animal Adjusting Association.
The article on cold laser begins by anticipating and defying criticism:
Invariably a new technique or process is often fraught with counter-intentions that are usually seen throughout the field of study and across the board. The relative benefit of such a process or new technology is directly proportional to the amount of consternation, doubt, and criticism that, it in fact receives….This author has seldom seen a technology as valuable and inspiring, as this particular technology appears to be. Suffice to say you are witnessing the emergence of a completely new age in healing and certainly a total paradigm shift in veterinary health care.
So the existence and strength of opposition to the technique should be seen as evidence of its benefits? Interesting logic. And if I haven’t mentioned it before, the use of the term “paradigm shift,” not to mention “completely new age,” are not only examples of ludicrous hyperbole, they are highly correlated with quackery, if not pathognomonic for it.
The underlying theory presented to explain the benefits of cold laser treatment is a bit of pseudoscience known as the Biophoton or Ultraweak Photon Emission idea. It is possible to detect very low energy photons emitted from living cells as the result of biochemical reactions. The significance, if any, of this for health and disease has never been demonstrated, which makes it a gap in real scientific knowledge into which all kinds of mystical nonsense can be stuffed, much like the pseudoscientific misuse of quantum physics. The veterinary chiropractic site advertising this treatment explains it this way:
It has been proven that cells communicate through coherent light. When a sperm and ovum fertilize, they immediately give off coherent light at precisely 632.8 nanometers.
Cells in the living matrix also communicate throughout the total body living things via a coherent light, and that communication is done instantaneously through the living matrix to direct all aspects of healing, growth, regulation of metabolism, and general cell survival.
To be able to dial into this communication process via an artificial methodology such as a cold laser is the ability to emulate the exact methodology is that the cells themselves use to heal themselves and also to grow, to change, and to survive. It has been said, “it is the way God talks to all cells, tissues, organisms and creatures.”
None of this is based on any sound science. It is merely vitalist, mystical speculation, which does not, of course, limit in any way the certainty and authority with which the fantasy is presented as scientific fact. This is yet another example of how chiropractic is fundamentally a pseudoscience based on imaginary “energy” and fake abnormalities like the “subluxation.” As such, it is open to any similar sounding nonsense, and any benefits it might have in practice are accidental and unrelated to the irrational and bogus underlying principles.
Like most pseudoscientific therapies, cold laser not only addresses the one true underlying cause of disease, it can also be applied in almost any way. Directly over diseased organs, in the general area of a symptom, even on acupuncture points associated with the meridians connected to the problem area. And since the proponents here are chiropractors, we should not be surprised to find that the use of lasers “is particularly effective in rehabilitating the effects of vertebral subluxation complex and their effects on the myofascial tissues affected by these subluxations.”
What else do these folks claim cold laser can do?
These protocols are designed to enhance a particular disease therapy or can be used in a general sense as the sole treatment of choice.
If a practitioner were to master only these protocols and use only these, he would be still far more effective than any of his colleagues to date using methods other than cold laser.
They list a number of general protocols first:
Lymphatic Drainage Protocol
Pre and Post Surgical Protocol
Liver Detox Protocol
Hormone Balance Protocol
Acute Pain-Injury Protocol
Sympathetic-Parasympathetic (S-PS) Balance Protocol
Acupuncture Meridian Balance Protocol
Allergy Protocol (Specific or General)
If one prefers a slightly more specific indication for the treatment, they can also provide protocols for laser treatment of:
Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Disease (CIBD)
Feline Skin-Spinal Reflex, Feline Neurodermatitis, Endocrine Alopecia, Milliary Eczema
Kidney Disease, FUS, FLUTD
Canine Hip Dysplasia Syndrome
Canine Idiopathic Epilepsy
Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Canine Wobbler’s Disease
Progressive Degenerative Myelopathy
Arthritis, (General or Focal) Sore Back etc.
Bleeder (exercise induced naso-pharyngeal hemorrhage) Elevated Blood Pressure
Bronchitis, Bronchopneumonia, Pneumonitis
Bruising, Subcutaneous Hemorrhage, Wound Reorganization
Colic (all kinds), Bloat
Bone Injury, (splint bone and acute boney injuries)
Dermatosis, Urticaria, Hives, Rain Scald
Ear and Guttoral Pouch Disease
Edema, (general, hypostatic, ventral, extremities)
Equine Protozoal Myelitis (EPM)(see also Neurotropic Herpes)
Facial Nerve Paralysis, Lip Paralysis
Fear, Terrors, Miss-emotion, Training Problems
Heart and Heart Related Conditions
Focal or General Inflammation
Lack of Focus in Training
Navicular Disease and Laminitis
Neurotropic Herpes (West Nile Virus?)
Proud Flesh, Excessive Granulation Tissue
Sepsis, (General or Focal)
So what is the truth behind all of these claims? Despite the nonsense of the underlying theory, is there any evidence cold laser therapy might have real benefits?
The answer for the vast majority of conditions is “No!” For a few conditions, the answer is more appropriately a “Maybe, but probably not much.”
Extensive reviews of the human literature have been done by the Cochrane Collaboration and the insurance companies Aetna and Cigna. These have found mixed but generally poor evidence for benefit as follows. A review of the veterinary literature on the subject can be found in Ramey 2004.
1. Cochrane Review for rheumatoid arthritis: 6 studies with a total of 660 people were examined. There was limited evidence for a small benefit, with an improvement in self-reported pain of 1.1 points on a 10 point scale. The studies were short term and methodologically weak and inconsistent, and the conclusion was, as usual for Cochrane reviews, that no firm conclusion can be drawn and more research is needed.
2. Cochrane Review for osteoarthritis: This examined 6 studies, three of which found no effect and three of which found a benefit. The studies were methodologically weak and inconsistent and more research was recommended. The review has since been withdrawn pending analysis of additional evidence and correction of some statistical errors.
3. Cochrane Review for nonspecific low back pain: 7 studies of 384 people. Three studies (168 people) showed very small improvement in pain compared with fake laser. Three studies (102 people) found no difference. All the studies used different treatment protocols and short-term evaluation, so no firm conclusions could be made.
4. Cochrane Review for tuberculosis: One poor quality study from India was available and did not meet even basic methodological standards, so no conclusion could be drawn.
5. CIGNA Review: References 1-36
A. Musculoskeletal Conditions: A number of studies and reviews in addition to the Cochran Reviews were examined. Generally, they showed no effect from most treatments for most measures but small benefits for a few measures in some trials. Overall, the evidence was weak and of poor quality, and it suggested some small benefit for discomfort and range of motion might be possible.
B. Wound Healing: Several systematic reviews were discussed, none of which showed convincing evidence of benefits for wound healing.
C. Oral Mucositis: Two small studies were reviewed, one of which showed a benefit to laser therapy and the other of which did not.
D. Other Medical Conditions: Reviews of laser use for temperomandibular joint disease and acute and chronic Achilles tendinitis found no clear evidence of benefit.
Summary: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been proposed for a wide variety of uses, including wound healing, tuberculosis, and musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia and carpal tunnel syndrome. There is insufficient evidence in the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature to demonstrate that LLLT is effective for these conditions or other medical conditions.
6. Aetna Review: References 37-81 (duplicates with CIGNA deleted)
” Although the results from large, uncontrolled, open trials of low-energy lasers in inducing wound healing have shown benefit, controlled trials have shown little or no benefit. The analgesic effects of low-energy lasers have been most intensely studied in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent well-designed, controlled studies have found no benefit from low energy lasers in relieving pain in rheumatoid arthritis or other musculoskeletal conditions. Furthermore, although positive effects were found in some earlier studies, it was not clear that the pain relief achieved was large enough to have either clinical significance or to replace conventional therapies.”
Published reviews indicate a lack of evidence for effectiveness for the following conditions:
chronic wounds, arthritis, tuberculosis, tinnitus, pain, smoking cessation, epicondylitis, Achilles tendinitis, plantar heel pain, back pain, and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Some evidence of benefit was found for the following conditions:
Raynaud’s phenomenon, pain following endodontic procedures, palpation sensitivity and passive extension in patients with shoulder pain (but not other measures), swelling following dental extraction when used in combination with steroids, tennis elbow pain in combination with plyometric exercise
Most of these studies were small and had methodological weaknesses, an most of their authors conclded that the treatment was promising but more research was needed to conclusively demonstrate a benefit.
7. Ramey 2004: References 82-100
Some studies have found evidence of improved wound healing in diabetic mice, dairy cattle, and laboratory rats. Other studies in rats and rabbits find small but clinically insignificant effects, and several studies have found no evidence of any effect on wounds in rats, guinea pigs, pigs, beagle dogs, and horses. A couple of poor quality studies of tendon and ligament injuries in horses have had conflicting results, one showing benefit and the other not. Other unblinded or uncontrolled studies in horses have suggested benefit for a variety of conditions. “Laser acupuncture” has been examined in uncontrolled and unblinded studies in horses, with the expected claims of benefit. Overall, there is weak evidence to suggest possible benefit in wound healing (though this conflicts with the results of higher quality studies in humans), and many claims made based on studies so poorly designed as to be no different from mere anecdotes. There is no good quality clinical research on which to base firm conclusions, or to support the dramatic claims of laser therapy proponents.
Overall, then, the theoretical foundations for low power laser therapy range from questionable to completely nonsensical pseudoscience. The in vitro research does suggest some real effects on living cells, but it does not indicate that such effects would be achievable or beneficial in actual patients. The human clinical research is extensive but of generally poor quality with no consistency to the laser treatment methods investigated, and it provides only very weak evidence of any clinically meaningful effects. The veterinary research is even more limited and of poor quality, ad it to is mixed with little convincing demonstration of real clinical benefits. All of this suggests an appropriate stance towards this therapy would be neutral to somewhat pessimistic, though certainly better quality research could identify some meaningful clinical benefits. The evidence does not support, and in some cases directly contradicts the claims made by the chiropratic organization website and much of the marketing materials on cold laser therapy veterinarians receive.
1. Arora H, Pai KM, Maiya A, Vidyasagar MS, Rajeev A. Efficacy of He-Ne Laser in the prevention and treatment of radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in oral cancer patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Feb;105(2):180-6.
2. Bingol U, Altan L, Yurtkuran M. Low-power laser treatment for shoulder pain. Photomed Laser Surg. 2005 Oct;23(5):459-64.
3. Bjordal JM, Lopes-Martins RA, Joensen J, Couppe C, Ljunggren AE, Stergioulas A, Johnson MI. A systematic review with procedural assessments and meta-analysis of low level laser therapy in lateral elbow tendinopathy (tennis elbow). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 May 29;9:75.
4. Bjordal JM, Lopes-Martins RA, Iversen VV. A randomised, placebo controlled trial of low level laser therapy for activated Achilles tendinitis with microdialysis measurement of peritendinous prostaglandin E2 concentrations. Br J Sports Med. 2006 Jan;40(1):76-80.
5. Bjordal JM, Couppe C, Chow RT, Tuner J, Ljunggren EA. A systematic review of low level laser therapy with location-specific doses for pain from chronic joint disorders. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(2):107-16.
6. Bjordal JM, Johnson MI, Lopes-Martins RA, Bogen B, Chow R, Ljunggren AE. Short-term efficacy of physical interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 Jun 22;8:51.
7. Brosseau L, Gam A, Harman K, Morin M, Robinson VA, Shea BJ, et al. Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating osteoarthritis (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004.
8. Brosseau L, Robinson V, Wells G, Debie R, Gam A, Harman K, et al. Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD002049.
9. Brosseau L, Wells G, Marchand S, Gaboury I, Stokes B, Morin M, et al. Randomized controlled trial on low level laser therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand. Lasers Surg Med. 2005
10. California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF). Low-energy laser therapy for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Technology Assessment. San Francisco, CA: CTAF; February 15, 2006. Accessed
June 7, 2009. Available at URL address: http://ctaf.org/content/general/detail/499
11. Chou R, Huffman LH; American Pain Society; American College of Physicians. Nonpharmacologic
therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):492-504.
12. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT Jr, Shekelle P, Owens DK; Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91.
13. Crossley K, Bennell K, Green S, McConnell J. A systematic review of physical interventions for patellofemoral pain syndrome. Clin J Sport Med. 2001 Apr;11(2):103-10.
14. Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(9):1-221.
15. Djavid GE, Mehrdad R, Ghasemi M, Hasan-Zadeh H, Sotoodeh-Manesh A, Pouryaghoub G. In chronic low back pain, low level laser therapy combined with exercise is more beneficial than exercise alone in the long term: a randomised trial. Aust J Physiother. 2007;53(3):155-60.
16. Ekim A, Armagan O, Tascioglu F, Oner C, Colak M. Effect of low level laser therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007 Jun 16;137(23-24):347-52
17. Emshoff R, Bösch R, Pümpel E, Schöning H, Strobl H. Low-level laser therapy for treatment of temporomandibular joint pain: a double-blind and placebo-controlled trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Apr;105(4):452-6.
18. Fikácková H, Dostálová T, Navrátil L, Klaschka J. Effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in temporomandibular joint disorders: a placebo-controlled study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007 Aug;25(4):297-303.
19. Flemming K, Cullum N . Laser therapy for venous leg ulcers (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3,2004 .
20. Genot MT, Klastersky J. Low-level laser for prevention and therapy of oral mucositis induced by chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2005 May;17(3):236-40.
21. Gerritsen AA, de Krom MC, Struijs MA, Scholten RJ, de Vet HC, Bouter LM. Conservative treatment options for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. J Neurol. 2002 Mar;249(3):272-80.
22. Gur A, Karakoc M, Nas K, Cevik R, Sarac J, Demir E. Efficacy of low power laser therapy in fibromyalgia: a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2002;17(1):57-61.
23. Gur A, Sarac AJ, Cevik R, Altindag O, Sarac S. Efficacy of 904 nm gallium arsenide low level laser therapy in the management of chronic myofascial pain in the neck: a double-blind and randomized controlled trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2004;35(3):229-35.
24. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) Technology Assessment. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. May 3, 2004. Accessed June 7, 2009. Available at URL address:
25. Lucas C, van Gemert MJ, de Haan RJ. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in the management of stage III decubitus ulcers: a prospective, observer-blinded multicentre randomised clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2003;18(2):72-7.
26. Mazzetto MO, Carrasco TG, Bidinelo EF, de Andrade Pizzo RC, Mazzetto RG. Low intensity laser application in temporomandibular disorders: a phase I double-blind study. Cranio. 2007 Jul;25(3):186-92.
27. McLauchlan GJ, Handoll HH. Interventions for treating acute and chronic Achilles tendinitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD000232.
28. McNeely ML, Armijo Olivo S, Magee DJ. A systematic review of the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for temporomandibular disorders. Phys Ther. 2006 May;86(5):710-25.
29. O’Connor D, Marshall S, Massy-Westropp N. Non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD003219.
30. Oken O, Kahraman Y, Ayhan F, Canpolat S, Yorgancioglu ZR, Oken OF. The short-term efficacy of laser, brace, and ultrasound treatment in lateral epicondylitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Hand Ther. 2008 Jan-Mar;21(1):63-7.
31. Ottawa Panel. Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Electrotherapy and Thermotherapy Interventions in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults. Phys Ther. 2004 Nov;84(11):1016-43.
32. Samson DJ, Lefevre F, Aronson N. Wound-Healing Technologies: Low-Level Laser and Vacuum-Assisted Closure. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 111. AHRQ Publication No. 05-E005-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2004. Accessed June 7, 2009. Available at URL address: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/woundtech/woundtech.pdf
33. Simon A. Technology Assessment. Low level laser therapy for wound healing: an update. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, 2004. Accessed June 8, 2009. Available at URL address: http://www.ihe.ca/publications/library/archived/low-level-laser-therapy-for-wound-healing/
34. Vlassov VV, MacLehose HG. Low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD003490.
35. White AR, Rampes H, Campbell JL. Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD000009.
36. Yousefi-Nooraie R, Schonstein E, Heidari K, Rashidian A, Pennick V , Akbari-Kamrani M, et al. Low level laser therapy for nonspecific low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD005107.
37. Basford JR. Low-energy laser therapy: Controversies and new research findings. Lasers Surg Med. 1989;9(1):1-5.
38. Wheeland RG. Clinical uses of lasers in dermatology. Lasers Surg Med. 1995;16(1):2-23.
39. Basford JR. Physical agents. In: Rehabilitation Medicine: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. JA De Lisa, ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Co.; 1993: 404-424.
40. Johannsen F, Hauschild B, Remvig L, et al. Low energy laser therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1994;23(3):145-147.
41. Heussler JK, Hinchey G, Margiotta E, et al. A double blind randomised trial of low power laser treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993;52(10):703-706.
42. Bulow PM, Jensen H, Denneskiold-Samsoe B. Low-power Ga-Al-As laser treatment of painful osteoarthritis of the knee: A double-blind placebo-controlled study. Scand J Rehab Med. 1994;26(3):155-159.
43. Krasheninnikoff M, Ellitsgaard N, Rogvi-Hansen B, et al. No effect of low power laser in lateral epicondylitis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1994;23(5):260-263.
44. Snyder-Mackler L, Bork CE. Effect of helium-neon laser irradiation on peripheral sensory nerve latency. Phys Ther. 1988;68:223-225.
45. Hirschl M, Katzenschlager R, Ammer K, et al. Double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled low level laser therapy study in patients with primary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Vasa. 2002;31(2):91-94.
46. Flemming K, Cullum N. Systematic reviews of wound care management (7): Low-level laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy for the treatment of chronic wounds. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(9):137-221.
47. Schneider W L, Hailey D. Low level laser therapy for wound healing. Health Technology Assessment. HTA 19. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 1999:1-23.
48. de Bie RA, de Vet HC, Lenssen AF, et al. Low-level laser therapy in ankle sprains: A randomized clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(11):1415-1420.
49. Marks R, de Palma F. Clinical efficacy of low power laser therapy in osteoarthritis. Physiother Res Int. 1999;4(2):141-157.
50. Gross AR, Aker PD, Goldsmith CH, et al. Physical medicine modalities for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1998;(2):CD000961.
51. van der Heijden GJ, van der Windt DA, de Winter AF. Physiotherapy for patients with soft tissue shoulder disorders: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Br Med J. 1997;315:25-30.
52. Puett DW, Griffin MR. Published trials of nonmedicinal and noninvasive therapies for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(2):133-140.
53. Waddell A. Tinnitus. In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; December 2004.
54. Binder A. Neck pain. In: Clinical Evidence, Issue 7. Tavistock Square, UK; BMJ Publishing Group; June 2002.
55. Landorf KB, Menz HB. Plantar heel pain and plantar fasciitis. In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; November 2007.
56. C. Shoulder pain. In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; February 2006.
57. Cullum N, Petherick E. Pressure ulcers. In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; February 2007.
58. Abdulwadud O. Does laser therapy improve healing and function in patients with tendinitis compared to no treatment? Evidence Centre Evidence Report. Clayton, VIC: Centre for Clinical Effectiveness (CCE); 2001.
59. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR), Institute of Health Economics. The use of low level laser therapy in wound care in Alberta, Canada: Results of a survey of physical therapists involved in rehabilitation, long term care and home care. Edmonton, AB: AHFMR; 2001.
60. Chapell R, Turkelson CM, Coates V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of worker-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 62. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2002.
61. Hirschl M, Katzenschlager R, Francesconi C, Kundi M. Low level laser therapy in primary Raynaud’s phenomenon–results of a placebo controlled, double blind intervention study. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(12):2408-2412.
62. Kreisler MB, Haj HA, Noroozi N, Willershausen B. Efficacy of low level laser therapy in reducing postoperative pain after endodontic surgery — a randomized double blind clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33(1):38-41.
63. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC). Position paper on low level laser therapy (LLLT). Medical Position Papers. Columbus. OH: Ohio BWC; September 2004.
64. Wang G. Low level laser therapy (LLLT). Technology Assessment. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Office of the Medical Director; May 3, 2004. Available at: http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Providers/Treatment/TechAssess/default.asp. Accessed June 8, 2005.
65. Green S, Buchbinder R, Hetrick S. Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD004258.
66. Nelson EA, Jones J. Venous leg ulcers. In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; September 2007.
67. Altan L, Bingol U, Aykac M, Yurtkuran M. Investigation of the effect of GaAs laser therapy on cervical myofascial pain syndrome. Rheumatol Int. 2005;25(1):23-27.
68. Posten W, Wrone DA, Dover JS, et al. Low-level laser therapy for wound healing: mechanism and efficacy. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(3):334-340.
69. White AR, Rampes H, Campbell JL. Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(1):CD000009.
70. Markovic A, Todorovic Lj. Effectiveness of dexamethasone and low-power laser in minimizing oedema after third molar surgery: A clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36(3):226-229.
71. Ziganshina L, Garner P. Tuberculosis (HIV negative people). In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; July 2008.
72. Crawford F, Thomson C. Interventions for treating plantar heel pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD000416.
73. Brosseau L, Robinson V, Wells G, et al. Low level laser therapy (Classes III) for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD002046.
74. Vlassov VV, MacLehose HG. Low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD003490.
75. BC Cancer Agency. Lymphedema. Patient/Public Information. Vancouver, BC: BC Cancer Agency; revised November 2007.
76. Kaviani A, Fateh M, Yousefi Nooraie R, et al. Low-level laser therapy in management of postmastectomy lymphedema. Lasers Med Sci. 2006;21(2):90-94.
77. Carati CJ, Anderson SN, Gannon BJ, Piller NB. Treatment of postmastectomy lymphedema with low-level laser therapy: A double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cancer. 2003; 98(6):1114-1122.
78. Moseley AL, Carati CJ, Piller NB. A systematic review of common conservative therapies for arm lymphoedema secondary to breast cancer treatment. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(4):639-646.
79. L, Mouraux A. EEG and laser stimulation as tools for pain research. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2005;6(1):58-64.
80. Stergioulas A. Effects of low-level laser and plyometric exercises in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007;25(3):205-213.
81. Reddy M, Gill SS, Kalkar SR, et al. Treatment of pressure ulcers: A systematic review. JAMA. 2008;300(22):2647-266282. Ramey DW, Rollin BE. Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine considered. Ames (IA), USA: Iowa State Press; 2004. p. 156-163.
83. Yu W, Naim JO, Lanzafame RJ. Effects of photostimulation on wound healing in diabetic mice. Lasers Surg Med. 1997;20(1):56-63.
84. Ghamsari SM, Taguchi K, Abe N, Acorda JA, Sato M, Yamada H. Evaluation of low level laser therapy on primary healing of experimentally induced full thickness teat wounds in dairy cattle. Vet Surg. 1997 Mar-Apr;26(2):114-20.
85. Kami T. The experimental effect of low-energy laser on skin flap survival. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992 Dec;90(6):1127-8.
86. Medrado AR, Pugliese LS, Reis SR, Andrade ZA. Influence of low level laser therapy on wound healing and its biological action upon myofibroblasts. Lasers Surg Med. 2003;32(3):239-44.
87. Braverman B, McCarthy RJ, Ivankovich AD, Forde DE, Overfield M, Bapna MS. Effect of helium-neon and infrared laser irradiation on wound healing in rabbits. Lasers Surg Med. 1989;9(1):50-8.
88. Surinchak JS, Alago ML, Bellamy RF, Stuck BE, Belkin M. Effects of low-level energy lasers on the healing of full-thickness skin defects. Lasers Surg Med. 1983;2(3):267-74.
89. Becker J. Biostimulation of wound healing in rats by combined soft and middle power lasers. Biomed Tech (berl) 1990;35(5):98-101 [in German]
90. Hutschenreiter G, Haina D, Paulini K, Schumacher G. [Wound healing after laser and red light irradiation] Z Exp Chir. 1980 Apr;13(2):75-85. [in German]
91. McCaughan JS Jr, Bethel BH, Johnston T, Janssen W. Effect of low-dose argon irradiation on rate of wound closure. Lasers Surg Med. 1985;5(6):607-14.
92. Basford JR, Hallman HO, Sheffield CG, Mackey GL. Comparison of cold-quartz ultraviolet, low-energy laser, and occlusion in wound healing in a swine model. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986 Mar;67(3):151-4.
93. In de Braekt MM. et al. Effect of low level laser therapy on wound healing after palatal surgery in beagle dogs. Lasers Surg Med 1991;11(5):462-70.
94. Peteson SL, et al. The effect of low level laser therapy (LLLT) on wound healing in horses. Equine Vet J 1999;31(3):228-31.
95. Kaneps AJ, Hultgren BD, Riebold TW, Shires GM. Laser therapy in the horse: histopathologic response. Am J Vet Res. 1984 Mar;45(3):581-2.
96. Marr CM, Love S, Boyd JS, McKellar Q. Factors affecting the clinical outcome of injuries to the superficial digital flexor tendon in National Hunt and point-to-point racehorses. Vet Rec. 1993 May 8;132(19):476-9.
97. Gomez-Villamandos RJ, et al. He-Ne laser therapy by fibroendoscopy in the mucosa of the equine upper airway. Lasers Surg med 19995;16(2):184-88.
98. McKibbin LS, Paraschak D. Use of laser light to treat certain lesions in standardbreds. Mod Vet Pract. 1984 Mar;65(3):210-3.
99. Martin BB Jr, Klide AM. Treatment of chronic back pain in horses. Stimulation of acupuncture points with a low powered infrared laser. Vet Surg. 1987 Jan-Feb;16(1):106-10.
100. Klide AM, Martin BB Jr. Methods of stimulating acupuncture points for treatment of chronic back pain in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1989 Nov 15;195(10):1375-9.
So I went to get my 2 hr required by law CE last night along with two glasses of wine sponsored by a cold laser company. The topic was cold laser but the speaker seems to like LED light also and the unit (14000 dollars) that he uses can do both. I ask some questions about the difference between cold laser classes and LED light. I think they said that the law requires you to wear goggles with laser but not LED. The speaker said the pet insurance company will pay for cold laser treatment as long as you do it in your office. Human medicine we were told is behind the times because the federal government will not pay for cold laser treatment for humans. So I guess there will not be any photos of nicu nurses wearing goggles lasering newborns anytime soon.
Sounds a lot like the hyperbaric oxygen chamber promotions – not approved, nor proven for safety and efficacy, but as long as performed by a vet, all is good. UGH!
Very interesting post. I never thought that cold laser may cause harm because it was being approves by the law. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Very interesting post. I never thought that cold laser may cause harm because it was being approves by the law. Thanks for sharing your insights.>>>>
The interesting thing about the glasses at the CE meeting was that someone in the audience had to bring it up and the speaker Dvm had to ask one of the cold laser reps about what the laws wearing glasses were. I guess if you just ignore the theft by deception laws your not going to give safety laws much attention either at required by law CE courses.
Thanks – my enthusiastic friend (DVM) was busy doing my dog and me. I as a skeptic kinda doubted that it would do much, and today, one day later, am not compelled that much has changed.
Now here’s one for you… do I gently dissuade my DVM friend (who has parted with considerable dollars to buy this device) by sending him this link, or just leave well enough alone?? Interesting conundrum.
Yes, it’s always difficult to decide whether to share information with someone when that information contradicts their beliefs. It rarely has any direct effect on what they believe, since we all tend to spin any information we get so that it supports what we already think, or discount it alltogether if we can’t. There’s nothing wrong with sharing if you have a good relationship and you think your friend is open to other points of view, but since you aren’t likely to change his/her mind anyway, it probably isn’t worth creating any conflict or awkwardness. If you do share, let me know how it goes. 🙂
Sometimes a little humor can help.
Art Malernee Dvm
So I suppose the U. of FL must be deluding themselves:
Oh well and Narda – a holistic vet – must be nuts:
Your logical fallacy here is Appeal to Authority. The fact that someone believes something, regardless of who that person is, is not itself evidence that belief is correct.
I like and respect Narda, and she and I agree on many things, but not yet on the quality of evidence for laser therapy. Her article puts a positive spin on the existing evidence. The far more comprehensive reviews I cite, and that you reject out of hand because you disagree with their conclusion, show a less positive balance of evidence.There is room for disagreement here, but you prove nothing, and add nothing constructive to the discussion, but suggesting that my conclusions are wrong simply because someone else has come to a different conclusion.
And Narda admits there is almost no evidence in veterinary patients. The only study she refers to is the UFL study which you also cite. If the only evidence so far is one small unpublished study is the sum total of the evidence in companion animals, that’s not very impressive.
The UFL link discusses a study that has only been presented at a conference, not published, so it is difficult to assess the quality or validity of the results. The proceedings from the ACVIM meeting indicate it was not randomized (alternate allocation was used), not blinded, and included no placebo control. Given it was supported by the manufacturer specifically to generate support for their marketing (as is stated in the article you link to), there is significant risk of bias, so without these controls the results or not very reliable.
Interestingly. there was another similar study presented by a different researcher at the same conference. There are few methodological details for this one also, so it’s impossible to know if it was controlled any better than the study you refer to. In any case the results were negative.
So now we have two studies, both small, at least one (and probably both) at high risk of bias. That is most consistent with the conclusion in my original article that laser is promising but by no means proven. I’m not sure why my refusal to make a confident judgment on this therapy until there is adequate evidence to support one bugs you so much, but the facts at this point simply aren’t definitive, whatever you choose to believe.
As an evidence based medicine preacher ( the discipline that insist on proof that traditional medical practices really work) I wish the FDA would require at least in humans two prospective randomized trials that show a long term benefit for hemilaminectomys. I did the surgery for years on dogs but stopped because I cannot even find a human study where surgeons can use results of an MRI to predict which cases will benefit from surgery and which ones will not. Even the artificial disc approved by the FDA did not need to prove benefit beyond placebo they just had to show that artificial disc worked as well as traditional back surgery.
This article presents the conclusions of insurance companies who interpreted the studies so there is a conflict of interest (but that doesn’t mean they are wrong).
Well, it presents the studies collected by the insurance companies and other sources. While every source has its bias, the research itself contains varying levels of control for such biases. And, of course, we have to ask what the alternative sources of information are and what biases they contain. It is certainly never a simple matter of accepting uncritically any particular bit of evidence or point of view, but neither can we ignore the evidence we have. In the case of cold laser, “promising but unproven” still seems an appropriate global assessment.
there are several studies out there, not just the ones mentioned here. I have a list of at least a 90 papers. Not all of these studies are great, but i think some are pretty decent. To me most reliable ones can be found on the journal of sports medicine, rheumatology, surgery, and orthopedics. All these human medicine, most articles are from Laser Sur Med and Photomed Surg.
And these last ones do have a lot of bias. I also agree that there is a lack of studies in animals(cat/dog/horse), where most applications of LLLT have been used. There are plenty of studies in mice and rats, but those are not the animals we usually use laser as therapy.
In the other hand, just because something hasn’t been proved to work yet, it doenst mean that it can work.
I am not absolutely convinced either way. But I do give laser some credibility because there is science behind it. Physics and biophysics are very real, although sometimes abstract. As One cannot see an object absorbing energy when a force is applied to it and counter interacting with a force in a different reaction. However we all know that its real and it happens just like that.
So I am still giving laser a chance until proven or unproven otherwise.
1. The studies mentioned here are systematic reviews, not clinical trials. This means they incorporate and summarize the results of clinical studies done on cold laser such as the ones you mention, so these studies haven’t been overlooked.
2. I think you summarize pretty much my view on cold laser. There is good scientific plausibility to suggest it might work, and some weak inconclusive clinical trial evidence, which adds up to “maybe.” The problem is not with testing or even using laser but with the strong positive claims made for it that go well beyond anything supported by the evidence, and by the widespread adoption of it in the veterinary profession as a revenue source before we know whether it actually helps in any particular situation. People are paying for this therapy, and they deserve to know what the evidence says, and does not say, about it.
Thanks for your input. I agree that we have jumped in band wagon a little to fast as usual. I also agree that it doesn’t really stimulate any company to perform any studies when the veterinary community seems already convinced. It is unfair to the clients and patients to pay for something without a strong scientific background. In the other hand, clients are often demanding the same type of care they have for their pets. That includes all the alternative options out there. What I mean is simply, they are not concerned about research, science based medicine. For all I know some people can careless for science based medicine. As you have already mentioned, many folks still make therapeutic decisions based on personal experience. Unfortunately, no mater what you say, for these clients miracles and stories are way more important. Its sad and frustrating when you have spent many years in school and still spend hours studying and reading studies (like I do). In the end of the day, you are only a successful vet if you make your clients happy. Thats the sad reality. So many vets are using technologies without understanding them. I could just blame the DVMs, but I won’t. If you have to pay your loans, your bills, and thus keep your clients, you may brake some oaths and even go against some of your own believes. Anyhow, I hope we have some good studies in actual pets in the following years. And I also hope all the leap of faith about laser were right.
In the end of the day, you are only a successful vet if you make your clients happy. Thats the sad reality. So many vets are using technologies without understanding them. I could just blame the DVMs, but I won’t. If you have to pay your loans, your bills, and thus keep your clients, you may brake some oaths and even go against some of your own believes. >>>>
Is there a name for that rationalization in medicine?
Thank you for doing the sound legwork on debunking this bollox. It’s obscene that so called medical professionals of any type are deluding themselves and their clients with this fraud.
Pingback: Cold Laser Therapy For ArthritisTinySide.com | TinySide.com
Pingback: Evidence Update: Cold Laser Therapy for Dogs & Cats | The SkeptVet
Do you think this is a topic worth revisiting? Technological advances and the newest research should be looked into. This article is from 2010 and I know there is more current research and case studies out there. The key to laser therapy seems to be the wavelength.
I’m actually working on an update of this article, which should be out in the Spring. Unfortunately, I’m not finding much new research evidence. People still make a lot of claims about laser therapy based almost entirely on theory or personal experience. One major problem with relying on anecdotes is that you don’t feel any need to do the research that will really uncover the truth.
Vets, Cold Laser treatments is snake oil 2016.
Health payers, such Cigna, consider Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to be experimental/investigational for all indications. While LLLT may be safe, its clinical utility has not been definitively determined. Several randomized controlled trials involving patients with venous ulcers, rheumatoid arthritis, and other musculoskeletal disorders have failed to demonstrate any significant benefits of low-level laser therapy when compared to standard treatment methods or placebos for these conditions.
Just say no.
My vet is suggesting we try cold laser treatment, in addition to other treatments, on our dog that appears to have an inflamed nerve in his neck that is causing him discomfort in his front right leg. He is not able to put full pressure on that leg. Your last comment on this topic indicated that you were hoping to present additional information on laser therapy in the spring of 2016. Do you have any updates?
My presentation on cold laser can be found HERE. Unfortunately, it is still in the category of promising but unproven. There are few risks if done properly, so as long as it isn’t substituted for established treatments, I don’t think it is wrong to try, but we don’t yet know how much it will help and in what conditions.
Vets, Cold Laser treatments is snake oil 2016.>>>
thanks for the 2017 update skepvet. Another promising year goes by.
A very informative blog thanks, we are still no nearer really from solving this particular question of whether it is a success or not so much.
Enjoyed the thoughtful approach and prose, and the field of cold laser is fraught with confusion and poor, incomplete and unverified product information.
Yet there are several analytical errors, presumptions and biases in your piece that are unidirectional, and it’s not clear how many of the actual studies (and how carefully) you read or how carefully, but support for the basic mechanisms of LLLT is extremely robust. Studies are extraordinarily difficult to do because multiple mechanisms need to be controlled for, which is not evidence, as you often seemed to imply, that something is not efficacious. As for its efficacy, again, read all the actual studies. Not summaries by others.
The Cochrane studies were limited, and their conclusions (and lack thereof) provide zero no basis for your claim of low level laser therapy as pseudoscientific, which again if you were familiar with what exactly is known (as well as what, as with many things) about the mechanisms, you would not be calling it pseudoscientific unless you held a strong bias.
Your conclusions from the Cochrane studies seem to be inaccurate. For e.g, I just read the first one, and the “limited benefit” conclusion was you, not Cochrane. As for the flaws you point out, they decrease the robustness of any positive effect conclusion, yet also decrease the robustness of any contrary conclusions or limitations on potential such as, for example, your “limited benefit” term. That is not an invalidation of laser therapy but on the small evidence presented, some support. The fact that the studies were mainly limited to the subjects’ hands is also restrictive.
The other study amalgamations were by insurance companies. Not a good source for this.
Am also not sure you are correct on your reason as to why medicine is better in the last 200 years. First of all it’s not that good relative to the attendant enormous increase in our scientific and biological knowledge and technological development – and in fact relative to those it is actually quite poor. Your point about the opening block quote “logic” of opposition corollary may be valid, but what it doesn’t take into account is that it has nothing at all to do with the efficacy or lack of efficacy of the actual practice, and what you are ostensibly trying to assess. As for the intimation that this is “new,” that is incorrect. Though perhaps by 2018 (in trying to learn about the actual products themselves – a daunting task to say the least – your article came up and am sharing these thoughts with recognition of the fact that have had 8 more years of comprehensive, vetted journal articles and studies on the subject), this is no longer considered the case.
One more example. A veterinarian who knee jerk ditched homeopathy — when it has its pluses and flaws just like conventional medicine [even if if has a LOT of flaws, that makes it no different than Western medicine in that regard – does he knee jerk ditch that?] which in some ways has been mind numbingly ill conceived and incredibly targeted towards a very narrow and limiting model — commented on how since 2008 there have been “over 1800 scientific papers published on the benefits and cellular & biological effects of photobiomodulation.” Data that as he points out is supportive of multiple KNOWN beneficial effects [not someone’s arbitrary and subjective pain sensation or perception] of photon interactions within tissues. He did not utilize or suggest most of the support was anecdotal or anything of the sort. In your response you write “but as you say we have mostly anecdote to show that it actually does.” He did not say.
You write intelligently. And of course we are all predisposed to our taken positions. Yet that clearly inaccurate and once again unidirectional assessment from an intelligent and thoughtful writer also suggests a pretty big bias, and one inconsistent with the openmindedness that is scientific skepticism’s cornerstone. Simply being skeptical per se is not scientific skepticism, which with all the political posturing has become extremely bastardized in the West into something the very opposite of skepticism. (Other than :advocacy skepticism” toward whatever issue it is that the skeptic is set against considering, understanding or accepting, under guise, ironically, of not being led by “belief” and the stated opinions of others, of course doing precisely that, and near blind belief in anything that supports the predetermined position while self convincing oneself of the exact opposite.)
A commenter (Cathy maybe?) linked to a U of Fl article and also a cohort of articles. You made some good points, but used the tired “appeal to authority” bias. This has become almost a religious mantra (at least in political related posturing) of those who want to believe something and self convince they are being the objective ones, often ironically because they listen with almost blind authority to many (often erroneous) authorities whe it is a belief they have become convinced of or want to hold. I mean it’s not a bad point when properly used, but it seemed she really wasn’t doing it. She merely was citing some evidence that she considered probative, and maybe being a bit too conclusionary from it without looking at the big picture (even if the big picture may in general support her position).
One incident, as commenter Tracey gave a (fairly good, however) example of, is not much evidence; but lots of incidents do help provide some empirical support. The medical mistakes and presumptions of the past do not discredit empirical one control observations, but mainly help put them (depending upon breadth and consistency across multiple variables) in the proper, potentially helpful but, barring remarkable consistently, constrained context. Perhaps not much (it is hard to say because have no paid as much attention to the total anecdotal and empirical “support”), but they do add, however, not subtract from that same large picture.
And, these, taken in cohort with studies that don’t come close to proving a lack of efficacy, often support efficacy, and offer strong support for cellular level changes that we know to be beneficial, presents a broad picture that, if not definitive, is pretty compelling.
It does not mean knowledge is complete, or that one can definitely say “this will help that person.” But it does suggest that broad banded skepticism of the potential for healing, especially at appropriate (and, complicated and poorly understood by most practitioners) dosing, or even skepticism of the general claim that LLLT is likely beneficial to a wide variety of individuals, is likely not objectively warranted.
I do realize part of your point, and one on which I more agree, is the type and amount of seller claims, but this seems to be the case with most health stuff these days, and far more problematic when there is little substantial to back it up. That said, I agree toning it down some would be helpful, but it is up to consumers to complain, demand. And FDA to stop regulating devices and what individuals can and can’t do, and start paying attention to false claims and mislabeled product information (including conventional, and not just – at least to the “U.S,” – relatively novel techniques.
See the FDA studies of which you seemingly approve showing the wonderful efficacy of multiple pharmaceuticals, and see similar studies of certain natural compounds (same robust parameters but often without bias) achieving similar results but almost never utilized by mainstream medical practitioners despite costing about one thousandth of the cost, not requiring a prescription, and having, as side effects, additional health benefits or ameliorations. Many of those studies are also flawed, and many show efficacy, yet in a large number of patients there still is no improvement. It doesn’t mean the treatment isn’t warranted dosing is warranted hat studies (again, see above) can not always conclusively prove a specific outcome in all patients but also often do show same.
The concern about cost is valid. Again FDA approval is adding considerably to this. This is low cost technology. Yet because of a multitude of factors (not the least of which is the ability of sellers to do and say whatever in a horribly informed market – which is exactly what the cold laser consumer marketplace is, and it is not being helped by the parroting that repeatedly pops up on google), the cost to consumers is far too high, even for many of the devices themselves; while getting good information, other than self serving sales pitches by the expensive sellers and a complete lack of knowledge or seeming care about it (and acceptance of this by consumers), is nearly impossible. That doesn’t change the known science behind the practice, which even in 2010 you were well behind on.
I would suggest, before we get too far into the weeds, that you look at the various updates I’ve made to this topic, since this post is 8 years old and things have changed. Here is a brief response to your main points
1. I agree that basic science research suggests laser has physiologic effects which could make it a useful therapy. However, the vast majority of new therapies which are promising in pre-clinical research fail to produce safe and effective clinical treatments once they are evaluated in clinical trials, so this only shows laser might be effective, not that it is.
2. The Cochrane reviews are the best available critical summary of the existing evidence. Suggesting I look at the primary literature rather than systematic reviews shows that you don’t understand the hierarchy of evidence. A systematic review is a detailed, critical analysis of all the primary literature, and its purpose is to assess the overall state of the evidence objectively and transparently. Cochrane reviews almost always hedge their bets and call for more and better research. However, the fact that they do not yet show robust support of most claims for laser therapy is a reliable indicator that the research literature is not yet very reliable.
3. Sure, the absence of evidence doesn’t mean the therapy doesn’t work. It does, however, mean that the claims made for it and the uses it is put to are not yet justified by strong research evidence. The burden of proof is always on those who advocate, use, and sell a treatment to show their claims are true, not on the rest of us to either prove them untrue or accept them without appropriate evidence.
4. Your dismissal of the insurance industry summary is just as biased as you believe the summary to be. While I have no doubt these companies have some interest in reducing their costs and not paying for therapies unless they have to, I also know that they cannot succeed in legal or business terms by refusing to cover a clearly proven effective treatment. And despite you suggestion to the contrary, I have read a number of the individual studies cited, though not all, and I see no reason to disagree with the Cochrane reviewers and other that the evidence they provide is promising but by no means a validation of the widespread claims and uses of laser therapy.
5. Unlike laser, homeopathy has clearly failed to prove its fundamental concepts or its clinical value, and it is well past time to abandon it. The fact that you seem to feel it has “pluses” suggests your own view of alternative therapies is pretty uncritical and not very evidence-based.
6. Likewise, the suggestion that the FDA should “stop regulating devices and what individuals can and can’t do” shows a radical rejection of a system which has dramatically reduced the harm to consumers from quack medical therapies. No system is perfect, but the requirement of pre-market approval based on controlled scientific evidence is a cornerstone of modern public health practice in every developed nation, and it has increased the safety and effectiveness of medical care markedly.
7. “natural” is an ideological term with no legitimate meaning in terms of deciding whether something is safe or effective. And the idea that “mainstream medicine” refuses to utilize scientifically proven “natural” therapies is nonsense. Such therapies are often “proven” only in the minds of believers, not in terms of robust research evidence.
As you can see from my subsequent reviews, I am cautiously optimistic laser therapy may be valuable for some specific uses, but I still do not see any justification for the level of confidence you seem to have in the practice.
As a locum I am thrown into situations where it is hoped I will be willing to administer or supervise the administration of this and some other alternative therapies . I escape the situation by legitimately referring to regulations requiring vets in my jurisdiction who administer the therapy to have taken training in the field . Hopefully these regulations will remain strong and in place .
Of course the training is usually a seminar by a manufacturer with reams of “ evidence” for efficacy preceded by warnings about the denial and outright lies one can expect to hear from the evidence based dinosaurs . What is most disturbing to me is the willingness of trained DVM’s to abandon the pillars of their education for the sake of money , and their expectation for me to ignore not only those pillars but the regulations of my own profession.
Question, I work in a chiropractic office I am a licensed massage therapist am I able 2 use cold laser on our patients without being certified as long as the doctor is on the premises?
Every state has a different set of rules, so it depends on the practice acts for the relevant professions in your state. Generally, laser therapy on animals would be viewed as veterinary medicine, so it would need to be administered either by a licensed vet or someone authorized under the veterinary practice act to work under supervision (direct or indirect, as defined in the act).
I’m not a scientist, a veterinarian, or a doctor, so I’m genuinely asking, not just coming up with a counter point.
What do you make of NASA? NASA seems to think that red light therapy and cold laser are the next big thing in healing and mitochondrial function.
There’s also been studies on LLLT in humans for the treatment of autoimmune thyroiditis.
There’s a bit of research suggesting that certain wavelengths of light actually end up producing nitric oxide. That’s why sunlight is good for you, besides Vitamin D, the production of nitric oxide appears to be beneficial for your heart.
If you feel that LLLT doesn’t actually work, how would you explain their results? Power of suggestion? They had placebo groups, so I can’t blame it on placebo effect. What would be the mechanism creating the result?
I don’t “fee that LLLT doesn’t actually work,” nor have I claimed that. What I have said is that most of the claims for what LLLT is supposed to do are not supported by reliable research evidence, and I’ve evaluated the evidence repeated over the years (this article is nine years old, so there have been many additional studies since then, which I look at periodically). The fact that NASA uses the practice doesn’t really mean anything. The armed forces are into acupuncture too, and the evidence for most of that is worse than for laser.
As for the evidence itself, you are treating preclinical studies (e.g. laser increases NO production) and clinical al trials (e.g. laser shortens wound healing time after surgery) as equivalent, and they are not. There is a lot of evidence that laser light does interesting things to cells and tissues, and I discuss that in my posts. There is, however, a lot less evidence that it actually leads to meaningful improvement in outcomes for real patients, which is what matters. There are some encouraging clinical studies, which you refer to, and many negative studies, which I notice you don’t mention. The overall balance of the literature does not yet support strong claims about clinical benefits for laser. It might someday, but we can’t simply assume that or ignore studies in which no benefit is seen. Research should continue until we find out what type of LLLT treatment might be useful for which conditions and what uses of laser are not worthwhile. Jury is still out.
Well, I do agree that we need to find which conditions LLLT is worthwhile. I’m most familiar with thyroid conditions since that’s an area of endocrinology I have personal experience. I’m sure there are plenty of conditions where it has no value. For myself, I did a ton of reading before deciding to try it, and it reduced my TPO levels just as it did in studies.
I have not seen any studies where it did harm. I have only seen studies where it had no benefit. With that context, I am inclined to think that the risk to reward ratio makes it worth trying.
Have you seen any studies where the laser actually caused harm or made the condition worse?
Please correct me if that is wrong, because I certainly would be much more opposed to it if I saw anything where it was actually causing harm.
I submitted a comment chiding the Skeptvet for not addressing the topic of cold laser therapy before I stumbled across this entry. Apologies! It is not listed in the index of covered topics on your website. I’m baffled and embarrassed by how many of my veterinary colleagues have “fallen” for this unproved, dubious form of alternative therapy. Half the small animal practitioners I know are offering it to treat a variety of disorders and most swearing by its efficacy. I wonder where in their education they failed to absorb the concept of the scientific method being critical to validating legitimate medical therapies and distinguishing them from shameless quackery? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised given that even in this day and age there are licensed veterinarians with valid degrees form accredited universities who believe in homeopathy.
But I’d still like to see you publish a critique such as this one (appropriately updated) in your column in Veterinary Practice News, a publication inexplicably dedicated to extolling the virtues of cold laser therapy (inexplicable unless you suspect that the publishers have a pecuniary interest in selling cold laser machines).
I did write one of my VPN columns discussing cold laser in August, 2018. Not much new evidence to justify an update since then.