A Prospective Comparative Study of Pulsed High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery · 2021 · Benefit · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

BenefitModerate evidencePaper 5703

Both pulsed high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and pulsed electromagnetic field (EMF) groups showed significant pre-post improvements after 8 weeks on pain, disability, and lumbar flexion ROM measures, with greater improvements reported in the HILT group tha…

Study snapshot

PublicationPhotobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery · 2021

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

This study explored the different effects of pulsed high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) versus pulsed electromagnetic field (EMF) in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain (ChNsLBP). Between August and December 2019, 51 ChNsLBP participants with a mean age of 35.2 ± 8.6 years were enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At random, they were divided into three groups, 17 in each; HILT, EMF, and controls. HILT group was recruited for Nd:YAG laser using the following parameters: a wavelength of 1064 nm, fluency of 610-810 mJ, frequency of 10-40 Hz, average power of 10.5 W, and 120 μs short pulse duration in scanning mode. All groups received the treatment twice a week for 8 consecutive weeks. They were assessed for the modified Oswestry disability index (MODI), pain disability index (PDI), visual analog scale (VAS), and lumbar flexion range of motion (flex ROM) before and after 8 weeks of study program. The results showed greater improvement in the HILT group (VAS, PDI, MODI, and lumbar flex ROM, = 0.001) than the EMF group (VAS, = 0.002, PDI, = 0.045, MODI, = 0.002, and lumbar flex ROM, = 0.042), with significant difference between the two groups in favor of the HILT group ( ˂ 0.05). Depending on the results of the study, both HILT and EMF are useful physiotherapy modalities in the treatment of ChNsLBP with HILT exhibiting better outcomes than EMF. Clinical recommendations should be highlighted to instigate the use of HILT in the management of musculoskeletal disorders, distinctively ChNsLBP.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typerandomized_trial

Effect directionbenefit

PopulationParticipants with chronic nonspecific low back pain (ChNsLBP); mean age 35.2 ± 8.6 years

Sample size51

Exposuretwice a week for 8 consecutive weeks

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI)
Pain Disability Index (PDI)
Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Lumbar flexion range of motion (flex ROM)

Limitations

EMF exposure parameters (e.g., field strength, frequency) not reported in the abstract
Short follow-up limited to immediate post-treatment (8 weeks)
Small sample size (17 per group)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "therapeutic pulsed electromagnetic field",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "twice a week for 8 consecutive weeks"
  },
  "population": "Participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain (ChNsLBP); mean age 35.2 ± 8.6 years",
  "sample_size": 51,
  "outcomes": [
    "Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI)",
    "Pain Disability Index (PDI)",
    "Visual Analog Scale (VAS)",
    "Lumbar flexion range of motion (flex ROM)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Both pulsed high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and pulsed electromagnetic field (EMF) groups showed significant pre-post improvements after 8 weeks on pain, disability, and lumbar flexion ROM measures, with greater improvements reported in the HILT group than the EMF group and a significant between-group difference favoring HILT.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "EMF exposure parameters (e.g., field strength, frequency) not reported in the abstract",
    "Short follow-up limited to immediate post-treatment (8 weeks)",
    "Small sample size (17 per group)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pulsed electromagnetic field",
    "PEMF",
    "high-intensity laser therapy",
    "HILT",
    "Nd:YAG",
    "chronic nonspecific low back pain",
    "pain",
    "disability",
    "range of motion",
    "randomized controlled trial",
    "physiotherapy"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1089/photob.2020.4975
PubMed: 33685237

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library