Talk:Low-level laser therapy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NICE Guideline

I've been waiting for this to become public for a while now. NICE, the body which publishes guidelines for the NHS, have published a guideline on the use of LLLT for the prevention of Oral Mucositis. This should be added to the section on Oral Mucositis under Medical uses. Given the lead has a paragraph that starts 'Despite a lack of consensus', I would also consider adding Oral Mucositis to that section as there is strong evidence and the consensus of those specialising in the area (e.g. MASCC, British Association of Head & Neck Oncologists, The Royal College of Radiologists) is that it is effective.

I also think this should be used as an opportunity to clean up the Research section, specifically the 'mouth' and 'cancer' sections. Thirdly, I would like to add this as further proof that LLLT should not be considered alternative medicine. Wikipedia defines alternative medicine as 'practices that claim to have the healing effects of medicine but are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect'. The issuing of this guideline (alongside other evidence) shows LLLT is not 'disproven, unproven or impossible to prove' and in regards to being harmful the guideline states 'Current evidence on the safety of low-level laser therapy for oral mucositis shows no major safety concerns.'

LLLT has been shown to to be clinically effective and should not be categorised as alternative medicine. Academia salad (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Confused as to why my change removing Quackwatch were undone? Looked at the linked page. It's a poor quality source that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. It is not a systematic review/meta analysis, not a medical journal and not published in a journal elsewhere. Doesn't cite sources for relevant claims. Six sources linked in the piece. Three are policies linked in the WP article. One is to a product website. Another is an FDA letter about the failings of that company. Just 1 RCT cited. Useful results, but too narrow for wide ranging claims. Plenty of systematic review linked in WP article, should rely upon them. XVDC (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge

So, what happens now. What content from "Red light therapy" do we take to merge into this one? IMHO there is nothing to merge. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

HELLO? (shouting) -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. No useful citations. Just merge and redirect to this page. XVDC (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Frustrating. Above User:Roxy the dog says 'nothing to merge'. Red Light Therapy merged and tacked on the end anyway. Doesn't belong there. So, merged into name section + maintain the media reference to Red Light Therapy (seems pertinent source can be found in [this revision](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low-level_laser_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=953459369)). Kept more than proposed above and get accused of lying. Removal of veterinary section was a mistake, clearly needed to be readded. Thanks for fixing. XVDC (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit text was "and has recently been called 'red light therapy' in popular media." which is not supported by the source you used, hence a lie. sorry. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove red light therapy section, add "In popular media it is sometimes referred to as Red Light Therapy" to Names section. Use Glamour citation as evidence. XVDC (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Serious question. Did you read where it says "is not supported by the source you used" just up there? Why would you suggest an edit which is not supported by the source you want to use? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Read it, but maybe not understanding? Think you were disagreeing with the use of 'recently'. MESH term says LLLT is "Treatment using irradiation with light of low power intensity so that the effects are a response to the light and not due to heat. A variety of light sources, especially low-power lasers are used.", source says "RLT works its magic by delivering safe, concentrated wavelengths of natural light into your skin (up to 10 deep millimeters, to be exact) where it’s absorbed by your cells […] It's not just any red light that delivers this performance-optimizing boost, however; two wavelengths of red light in particular—660 nanometers and 850 nanometers—deliver the best biological response". Fits under the definition above. MESH does not list Red Light Therapy as a term. But article in popular media uses it as synonymous. If you disagree with source, why did you put it back in Red Light Therapy section? Why not remove source or section? XVDC (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I dont understand what it is about which is not supported by the source you used that you do not understand. That means that your source doesnt say anything that could possibly be interpreted as "and has recently been called 'red light therapy' in popular media." I'm not sure how I could make the phrase more understandable.-Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Three more ways could be interpreted! Not supported because not under MESH term, not supported because not actually the same therapy, not supported because I said 'recently'. Also, YOU put these words back in! "RLT is being promoted in the popular media with unproven claims of multiple benefits". If you don't like it, why did you put it back? XVDC (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I dont understand what is going on any more. I'm on cooking duty, so I'm going away for a couple of hours, back with fresh eyes later. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

XVDC Shall we start again? Are you still unhappy with me? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, happy to start again. Are you still unhappy with me? XVDC (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. But I am angry with myself. for all of the above behaviour. I'm sorry.

If there is anything you want to improve, I'd be glad to help, like a normal person ought to. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a lot. Would like to get better at contributing to wikipedia. Would like to improve this page. It is a challenge. But a good challenge, hopefully. How best to make improvements? Will be a lot of work. But it is good to learn. XVDC (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft reorganisation

Decided to take a run at re-organising the page. Primary Goal was to group information better and move most relevant information to the top. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LLLT-Reorganise

• Reordered page
• Reduced lede
• Consolidated veterinary uses into medical uses.
• Shortened to veterinary uses to improve legibility and clarity.
• Moved "name" under "History".
• Improved visibility of MeSH terms under 'names' section. Added sentence regarding "photobiomodulation" as "preferred term" per ASLMS and SPIE. Added 'Red Light Therapy' as a term per WebMD.
• Added section regarding government action to society and culture per Barrett's post. Added citations to other reliable sources to meet WP:Notability
• Removed link to Norway reimbursement (dead link, unable to verify).
• Updated CIGNA citation in reimbursement to working static link.

Will implement next week if no major concerns, please share input. XVDC (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Karu, T, T (1999). "Primary and secondary mechanisms of action of visible to near-IR radiation on cells". J Photochem Photobiol B 1999 Mar 49(1) 1-17. 49 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1016/S1011-1344(98)00219-X. PMID 10365442.
• Lane N., N (2006). "Power Games". Nature. 2006 Oct 26;443(7114):901-3. 443 (7114): 901–3. doi:10.1038/443901a. PMID 17066004.
• Shining light on the head: Photobiomodulation for brain disorders, Michael R. Hamblin, BBA Clinical, Volume 6, December 2016, Pages 113-124. Added by Lbeaumont (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Rheumatoid Arthritis

A meta-analysis was published in Sept. 2023 with almost 800 patients in Random Controlled Treatments (compared to the "gold standard" of double blind RCT). They found weak evidence that for RA, LLLT was ineffective. That is, the (insufficient) evidence leans towards the conclusion that it. doesn't. work. Lourinho, et al PLoS-ONE.98.17.44.45 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. They don't exactly say that LLLT in general is ineffective for RA but specifically infrared light therapy. The effect of red light therapy is "uncertain". In conclusion, infrared laser may not be superior to sham in RA patients. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of red laser, laser acupuncture and reflexology for treating patients with RA. (Lourinho, Ingrid; Sousa, Tamara; Jardim, Roger; Pinto, Ana Carolina; Iosimuta, Natália (2023-09-08). "Effects of low-level laser therapy in adults with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials". PLOS ONE. 18 (9): e0291345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291345. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 10490856. PMID 37683021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Veracity

This is a bit confusing. Duckduckgo's summary of this article is

>Red light therapy is an ineffective kind of light therapy in which the skin of the patient is exposed to long-wavelength red light, near or including the infrared portion of the spectrum, during a series of sessions. There is no evidence that RLT is effective at treating the skin or any other part of the body for any medical condition. RLT is being promoted in the popular media with unproven claims of multiple benefits

But I don't see any of that text in the article. What is happening? Justpasding (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)