𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐏𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐂 𝐍𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐂 𝐋𝐎𝐖 𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐏𝐀𝐈𝐍: 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬, 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐩 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐏𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐂 𝐍𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐂 𝐋𝐎𝐖 𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐏𝐀𝐈𝐍: 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬, 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐩 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐀𝐁𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓

𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝: Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT)—employing red and near-infrared light (600–1100 nm)—modulates cellular processes via mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase activation, producing enhanced ATP production, redox signaling, and anti-inflammatory effects (Hamblin, 2017; Karu, 1999). Despite mechanistic plausibility, PBMT is marketed broadly for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) and athletic recovery with claims exceeding current evidence and contradicting biophysical constraints.

𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞: This critical review evaluates PBMT's mechanistic basis, clinical efficacy, evidence quality, and cost-effectiveness for CNSLBP and muscle recovery, applying GRADE criteria and contextualizing findings within international clinical guidelines to distinguish scientifically defensible applications from pseudoscientific overreach.

𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐬: Synthesis of high-quality systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (2008–2025) using GRADE and AMSTAR-2 frameworks, with emphasis on adequately powered, placebo-controlled trials and conflict-of-interest transparency (Guyatt et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2019).

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬: Systematic reviews demonstrate only modest, short-term benefits in select conditions (oral mucositis, superficial wound healing), while evidence for musculoskeletal pain remains low to very low in certainty. The highest-quality trial (triple-blind RCT, n=148) found no clinically meaningful difference between active PBMT and sham (VAS difference: 0.01, 95% CI: –0.94 to 0.96). Meta-analyses of athletic recovery reveal minimal improvements in objective biomarkers and no consistent performance enhancement. Insurance coverage remains limited; PBMT lacks a Category I CPT code and is classified as investigational by most U.S. commercial insurers.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Current evidence does not support PBMT as first-line therapy for CNSLBP. While PBMT exhibits biologically plausible mechanisms, this has not translated into clinically meaningful, reproducible patient benefits. International guidelines (WHO, ACP) do not recommend PBMT for chronic low back pain. Until adequately powered, pre-registered, multicenter trials demonstrate clear, durable benefit, PBMT should remain investigational and not be recommended for routine clinical use outside research contexts.

𝐊𝐞𝐲𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬: Photobiomodulation; low-level laser therapy; chronic low back pain; GRADE; cost-effectiveness; clinical guidelines; evidence-based medicine; pseudoscience; translational medicine.

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐈: 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

𝟏. 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

𝟏.𝟏 𝐌𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬

The mechanistic foundation of PBMT rests on well-characterized photochemical processes at the mitochondrial level. The principal photoacceptor for therapeutic wavelengths (600–1100 nm) is cytochrome c oxidase (Complex IV) in the mitochondrial electron transport chain (Karu, 1999; Hamblin, 2017). When photons of appropriate energy interact with this enzyme, several interconnected effects occur:

• 𝐀𝐓𝐏 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Increased catalytic efficiency in the electron transport chain supports cellular processes including protein synthesis and organelle biogenesis (Karu, 1999; Hamblin, 2017).

• 𝐑𝐎𝐒-𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠: Transient increases in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (superoxide and hydrogen peroxide) act as second messengers, activating transcription factors (NF-κB, AP-1, Nrf2) that modulate inflammatory gene expression and upregulate antioxidants (Hamblin, 2017).

• 𝐍𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Release of NO from cytochrome c oxidase acts as a vasodilator, improving cellular oxygenation (Hamblin, 2017).

• 𝐁𝐢𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐬𝐞-𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞: The Arndt-Schulz curve describes the temporal dynamics: low to moderate doses stimulate repair; excessive doses may inhibit or damage cells. Dosimetry is therefore critical but inconsistently applied clinically (Huang et al., 2009).

𝟏.𝟐 𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬 𝐃𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐜𝐲

Despite compelling cellular mechanisms, PBMT faces fundamental biophysical limitations that constrain clinical effectiveness:

𝐋𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐎𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬:

Red light (660 nm) penetrates ~0.5–1 mm; near-infrared (700–900 nm) reaches ~1–2 cm before losing 37% intensity, with exponential further attenuation (Jacques, 2013).

Hemoglobin and melanin strongly absorb light <650 nm; water absorption increases at longer IR wavelengths; cellular scattering further reduces photon density at depth (Jacques, 2013).

Superficial tissues (skin, subcutaneous fat, superficial muscle) receive therapeutic light; deeper musculoskeletal structures and spinal elements remain largely inaccessible to meaningful doses (Jacques, 2013; Hamblin, 2017).

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦-𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐣𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:

This gap between mechanistic promise and clinical reproducibility exemplifies a broader translational science challenge: plausible cellular pathways are often mistaken for proven therapeutic efficacy. PBMT exemplifies this precisely because genuine biochemical effects documented in vitro and in animals do not consistently produce clinically meaningful patient benefits in vivo.

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐈: 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐒𝐘𝐍𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐒

𝟐. 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐁𝐌𝐓 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐍𝐒𝐋𝐁𝐏 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲

𝟐.𝟏 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐍𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐋𝐨𝐰 𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐏𝐚𝐢𝐧

𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥:

The strongest available clinical evidence—Guimarães et al. (2021), a triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial (n=148, 74/arm)—showed no clinically meaningful difference between active PBMT and sham for pain or disability at any follow-up period (VAS difference: 0.01, 95% CI: –0.94 to 0.96). This trial employed optimal dosimetry (904 nm wavelength, 27 J/point) and methodological rigor, yet found null results across all timepoints through 12-month follow-up.

𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐒𝐲𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬:

Early systematic reviews (Yousefi-Nooraie et al., 2008) identified small effect sizes, protocol heterogeneity, and methodological limitations. More recent meta-analyses (Tomazoni et al., 2020; n≈1,046) found inconsistent and generally small effects across broader populations, showing no clinically meaningful benefit over sham or exercise. Typical pain improvements fall below minimal clinically important difference thresholds (10–20 mm on 100-mm VAS).

𝟐.𝟐 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲

Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Álvarez-Martínez & Borden, 2025; do Nascimento et al., 2024) reveal:

• No consistent improvements in objective biomarkers (CK, LDH, lactate)

• No significant enhancement of performance outcomes (SMD = 0.13, p = 0.11 for running performance)

• Modest, context-specific benefits in certain populations (less-trained individuals, volleyball/football athletes) when PBMT is applied pre-exercise, particularly for muscle endurance metrics (repetitions, CK reduction), though effect sizes remain small and clinical significance is uncertain (Pinto et al., 2016)

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐈𝐈: 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐆𝐔𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄-𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐗𝐓

𝟑. 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐬

𝟑.𝟏 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 (𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑)

The WHO's first guideline for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) emphasizes a biopsychosocial, person-centered approach in primary and community care settings. The guideline:

• 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 structured education (self-management), structured exercise (aerobic, strength, flexibility), and cognitive-behavioral therapy

• 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 including acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and multimodal biopsychosocial interventions (low to moderate certainty evidence)

• 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 routine imaging and other interventions lacking evidence of benefit

• 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 photobiomodulation from core first-line or adjunctive interventions (WHO, 2023)

𝟑.𝟐 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 (𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕)

The ACP prioritizes nonpharmacologic interventions as first-line.

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞/𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧: "Clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence)" (p. 513).

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧: "Clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence)" (p. 514).

𝐏𝐁𝐌𝐓 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: LLLT/PBMT is listed but supported only by low-quality, inconsistent evidence. Massage therapy is notably omitted for chronic pain due to methodological weaknesses (small samples, short follow-up, inadequate blinding).

𝟑.𝟑 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐁𝐌𝐓

Both WHO and ACP guidelines reflect a convergent message: PBMT lacks sufficient evidence for routine recommendation. High-quality RCTs, systematic reviews, and expert panels consistently place PBMT outside core evidence-based care for CNSLBP.

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐕: 𝐌𝐄𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐃𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐐𝐔𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐁𝐈𝐀𝐒 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝟒. 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐁𝐌𝐓 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡

𝟒.𝟏 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫

Many PBMT trials are underpowered, increasing false-positive risk and effect size inflation (Ioannidis, 2022; Guyatt et al., 2011). The gold-standard Guimarães trial (n=148, 74/arm) illustrates both modest sample sizes typical in PBMT research and the critical importance of rigorous RCT design.

𝟒.𝟐 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 𝐇𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Extreme variability in treatment parameters (wavelength 780–904 nm; power 4.2–500 mW; energy density 0.06–31.2 J/point; duration 1.5 seconds to 40 minutes; contact vs. non-contact mode) complicates meta-analysis and prevents standardization. Earlier meta-analyses (Glazov et al., 2016) reported moderate-quality evidence for short-term benefit in specific subgroups (higher energy, non-acupuncture LLLT, shorter chronicity), but these modest improvements were not sustained and were not replicated in higher-quality recent trials (Tomazoni et al., 2020).

𝟒.𝟑 𝐁𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬

Effective blinding is challenging due to sensory cues (visible light, warmth, sound). Methodological analyses show inadequate historical sham designs. However, recent high-quality trials (e.g., Guimarães et al., 2021) have improved sham credibility by using dim red light without therapeutic output, maintaining blinding during follow-up.

𝟒.𝟒 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Meta-epidemiological evidence shows industry-sponsored device trials report more favorable results than independent studies (Lundh et al., 2017). Industry sponsorship is a consistent risk factor for positive reporting and should be transparently disclosed and adjusted for in evidence synthesis (Hansen et al., 2019).

𝟒.𝟓 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲

Overall certainty of evidence for PBMT in CNSLBP and athletic recovery: 𝐋𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐋𝐨𝐰

𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬:

𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 (𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬): Inadequate blinding, unclear randomization, selective reporting, lack of pre-registration

𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 (𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬): Heterogeneous effect sizes and treatment parameters across studies

𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬): Small sample sizes, wide confidence intervals

𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 (𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬): Evidence of selective reporting and industry influence

Per GRADE guidance: Interventions supported only by low or very-low certainty evidence should 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐞 (Guyatt et al., 2011).

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐕: 𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐘𝐒𝐈𝐒

𝟓. 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞

𝟓.𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Given the lack of demonstrated efficacy for PBMT in CNSLBP combined with substantial patient costs, formal cost-effectiveness analyses conclude PBMT represents poor value for musculoskeletal indications (Guimarães et al., 2021; Qaseem et al., 2017; WHO, 2023).

The economics argument: When null or trivial clinical efficacy is combined with treatment costs ($600–$3,600 per course), the cost-per-unit-of-benefit approaches infinity—a clear resource misallocation signal. From a health economics perspective, resources diverted to PBMT represent opportunity costs—money not invested in proven interventions (exercise, CBT, etc.), particularly concerning in resource-limited settings.

𝟓.𝟐 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬

𝐂𝐏𝐓 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠: As of 2024–2025, PBMT for musculoskeletal indications lacks a widely adopted Category I CPT code; reimbursement is inconsistent

𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞/𝐂𝐌𝐒: PBMT for CNSLBP is not covered; only specific non-musculoskeletal indications (retina/AMD) have temporary or Category III entries

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐫𝐬: Aetna, BCBS, United Healthcare, Cigna classify PBMT as "investigational" for musculoskeletal pain; coverage requires prior authorization with detailed medical necessity documentation

𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧: $50–$150 per session × 12–24 sessions = $600–$3,600 per treatment course—a significant out-of-pocket burden compared to evidence-based interventions (exercise, CBT) that may be covered

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐕𝐈: 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐒𝐀𝐋

𝟔. 𝐏𝐬𝐞𝐮𝐝𝐨𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

A defining hallmark of pseudoscience is the unjustified extrapolation of legitimate mechanisms to support unverified claims (Angell & Kassirer, 1998). PBMT exemplifies this: genuine photochemical effects observed in vitro are misrepresented as broad clinical efficacy that exceeds biophysical constraints and empirical support.

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬:

•"𝐖𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞-𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧": ignores fundamental limitations of light penetration and falsely assumes systemic effects from localized exposure.

•"𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧": lacks any credible biological mechanism or scientific proof.

•"𝐃𝐞𝐞𝐩-𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥": contradicts established tissue optics; near-infrared photons penetrate only a few millimeters to low centimeters.

•"𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐲": overstates potential benefits and ignores inconsistent trial results.

•"𝐅𝐃𝐀-𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐲": misleadingly conflates FDA clearance (which is for safety/equivalence) with proven effectiveness.

𝐂𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬:

𝐀𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜: Vivid testimonials are more memorable than controlled trial data (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973)

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬: Patients attend to confirming evidence, dismiss contradictions (Nickerson, 1998)

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐜 𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐜: Attributing improvement to treatment, ignoring natural recovery or concurrent interventions (Lilienfeld et al., 2014)

𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬: Medical/scientific language accepted uncritically by those lacking expertise (Lilienfeld et al., 2014)

𝐅𝐃𝐀 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐞: Many PBMT devices hold 510(k) clearance for "temporary pain relief" or "muscle soreness"—based on safety and substantial equivalence, NOT validated therapeutic efficacy. Marketing such clearance as proof of effectiveness violates evidence-based practice principles.

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐕𝐈𝐈: 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

𝟕. 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞-𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬:

• Do not recommend PBMT as first-line therapy for CNSLBP

• Provide transparent communication about low certainty of evidence, null trial findings, and guideline non-endorsement

• Prioritize established treatments with strong evidence (structured exercise, CBT, patient education)

• Discuss financial burden explicitly; note insurance non-coverage and high out-of-pocket costs

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬:

• Design large, multicenter RCTs powered for clinically meaningful outcomes using realistic effect-size assumptions (often several hundred per arm, not a fixed n)

• Develop standardized protocols based on dose-response mechanistic data

• Improve blinding and sham controls (as exemplified by Guimarães et al., 2021)

• Pre-register trials and adhere to CONSORT guidelines to prevent selective reporting

• Disclose financial conflicts transparently

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬:

• Maintain critical skepticism of extraordinary claims, especially those promising "rapid" or "universal" healing

• Consider financial burden: PBMT costs $600–$3,600 per course with uncertain benefits

• Prioritize evidence-based care: Exercise and psychology-based interventions have proven long-term benefits

• Avoid delayed care: Never substitute unproven therapies for established treatments

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐕𝐈𝐈𝐈: 𝐅𝐔𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

𝟖. 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

To advance the field and clarify PBMT's potential role (if warranted):

1.Large multicenter RCTs with adequate power and realistic effect-size assumptions

2. Standardized protocols derived from mechanistic and dose-response studies

3. Objective biomarkers reflecting neuroinflammation, pain signaling, tissue repair

4. Subgroup analysis identifying patient phenotypes most likely to respond

5. Comparative effectiveness trials testing PBMT as adjunct to evidence-based treatments

6. Long-term pragmatic trials assessing durability and real-world effectiveness

7. Strict adherence to transparency standards: Pre-registration, conflict disclosure, CONSORT guidelines

𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍

Photobiomodulation therapy exemplifies a fundamental translational medicine challenge: the disjunction between mechanistic plausibility and clinical efficacy.

PBMT engages genuine biochemical pathways—mitochondrial energy metabolism, redox signaling, anti-inflammatory cascades—documented convincingly in laboratory and animal models (Karu, 1999; Hamblin, 2017). However, tissue optics impose strict constraints: photon fluence decreases exponentially with depth, limiting effective penetration to superficial tissues (Jacques, 2013). Combined with the biphasic dose-response relationship and challenges in achieving standardized, reproducible clinical protocols, these biophysical realities explain why mechanistic effects have not reliably translated to clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

For chronic nonspecific low back pain, the best-available evidence—including a recent triple-blind RCT—demonstrates no clinically meaningful benefit of PBMT over sham (Guimarães et al., 2021). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently find small, short-lived effects at best, with overall GRADE certainty rated as low to very low (Tomazoni et al., 2020). Major international clinical guidelines—WHO (2023) and ACP (2017)—do not recommend PBMT for chronic low back pain, reflecting recognition of this insufficient evidence base.

For athletic performance and recovery, meta-analyses reveal minimal or inconsistent improvements in objective biomarkers and no consistent performance enhancement (do Nascimento et al., 2024; Forsey et al., 2023). Some studies report modest benefits in narrow populations, but effect sizes remain small and clinical significance is debatable.

Cost-effectiveness considerations further argue against routine adoption: PBMT costs $600–$3,600 per treatment course, represents substantial patient out-of-pocket burden, and yields negligible clinical benefit—a resource allocation failure (Qaseem et al., 2017; WHO, 2023).

For indication-specific balance: PBMT demonstrates stronger, evidence-supported effectiveness in non-musculoskeletal contexts such as prevention and management of oral mucositis in cancer patients (MASCC/ISOO guideline support), illustrating that PBMT's clinical value is highly context-dependent and indication-specific.

The overarching lesson: Biological plausibility, while necessary for therapeutic innovation, is insufficient for clinical validation. The PBMT experience should inform researchers, clinicians, and policymakers that rigorous, adequately powered, pre-registered, multicenter trials with standardized protocols remain essential before translating promising mechanisms into clinical practice recommendations.

Until such evidence materializes, PBMT should remain investigational and not be recommended as routine clinical care for chronic nonspecific low back pain. The discipline of evidence-based medicine—grounded in methodological rigor, intellectual honesty, and patient-centered transparency—demands this cautious, evidence-respecting position.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬

Álvarez-Martínez, M., & Borden, G. (2025). A systematic review on whole-body photobiomodulation for exercise performance and recovery. Lasers in Medical Science, 40(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04318-w

Angell, M., & Kassirer, J. P. (1998). Alternative medicine—the risks of untested and unregulated remedies. New England Journal of Medicine, 339(12), 839–841. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199809173391210

Aetna. (2024). Infrared therapy - Clinical Policy Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0604.html

Bjordal, J.M., Johnson, M.I., Lopes-Martins, R.A. et al. Short-term efficacy of physical interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8, 51 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-8-51

Blue Cross Blue Shield. (2024). Medical policy - Low level laser therapy and high-power laser therapy. Retrieved from https://www.bcbsm.com/

Chow, R. T., Johnson, M. I., Lopes-Martins, R. A., & Bjordal, J. M. (2009). Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in the management of neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo or active-treatment controlled trials. Lancet, 374(9705), 1897–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61522-1

Cigna Healthcare. (2025, March 15). Low-level laser and high-power laser therapy (CPG 030): Medical coverage policy [Effective 3/15/2025; next review 3/15/2026]. https://static.cigna.com/.../med.../cpg030_laser_therapy.pdf

do Nascimento, A. P., da Silva, A. V., Casonatto, J., & Aguiar, A. F. (2024). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effects of photobiomodulation therapy on running performance. International Journal of Exercise Science, 17(4), 327–342. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol17/iss4/10/

Elad, S., Cheng, K. K. F., Lalla, R. V., Yarom, N., Hong, C., Logan, R. M., Bowen, J., Gibson, R., Saunders, D. P., Zadik, Y., Ariyawardana, A., Correa, M. E., Ranna, V., Bossi, P., & Mucositis Guidelines Leadership Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) (2020). MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. Cancer, 126(19), 4423–4431. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33100

ESCEO. (2023, December 7). WHO guideline: Non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain in adults in primary and community care settings. European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases. https://www.esceo.org/.../who-guideline-non-surgical...

Fontanarosa, P. B., & Lundberg, G. D. (1998). Alternative medicine meets science. JAMA, 280(18), 1618–1619. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.18.1618

Forsey, J.D., Merrigan, J.J., Stone, J.D. et al. Whole-body photobiomodulation improves post-exercise recovery but does not affect performance or physiological response during maximal anaerobic cycling. Lasers Med Sci 38, 111 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-023-03759-5

GBD 2021 Low Back Pain Collaborators (2023). Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990-2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet. Rheumatology, 5(6), e316–e329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00098-X

Glazov, G., Yelland, M., & Emery, J. (2016). Low-level laser therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, 34(5), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1136/acupmed-2015-011036

Guimarães, L. S., Costa, L. D. C. M., Araujo, A. C., Nascimento, D. P., Medeiros, F. C., Avanzi, M. A., Leal-Junior, E. C. P., Costa, L. O. P., & Tomazoni, S. S. (2021). Photobiomodulation therapy is not better than placebo in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Pain, 162(6), 1612–1620. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002189

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012

Hamblin, M. R. (2017). Mechanisms and applications of the anti-inflammatory effects of photobiomodulation. AIMS Biophysics, 4(3), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.3934/biophy.2017.3.337

Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hróbjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 8. Art. No.: MR000047. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000047.pub2. Accessed 31 October 2025.

Hohenschurz-Schmidt, Davida,*; Draper-Rodi, Jerryb; Vase, Lenec; Scott, Whitneyd,e; McGregor, Alisonf; Soliman, Nadiaa; MacMillan, Andrewb; Olivier, Axelg; Cherian, Cybill Annh; Corcoran, Danieli; Abbey, Hilaryb; Freigang, Saschaj; Chan, Jessicag; Phalip, Julesk; Nørgaard Sørensen, Leal; Delafin, Maitem; Baptista, Margaridan; Medforth, Naomi R.o; Ruffini, Nuriap; Skøtt Andresen, Stephanieq; Ytier, Sylvainr; Ali, Dorotas; Hobday, Harriett; Santosa, Anak Agung Ngurah Agung Adhiyogau; Vollert, Jana,v,w,x; Rice, Andrew S.C.a. Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article I): a systematic review and description of methods. PAIN 164(3):p 469-484, March 2023. | DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002723

Hoy, D., March, L., Brooks, P., Blyth, F., Woolf, A., Bain, C., Williams, G., Smith, E., Vos, T., Barendregt, J., Murray, C., Burstein, R., & Buchbinder, R. (2014). The global burden of low back pain: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 73(6), 968–974. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428

Huang, Y. Y., Chen, A. C., Carroll, J. D., & Hamblin, M. R. (2009). Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy. Dose-Response, 7(4), 358–383. https://doi.org/10.2203/dose-response.09-027.Hamblin

Huang, Z., Ma, J., Chen, J. et al. The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther 17, 360 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-015-0882-0

Ioannidis JPA (2022) Correction: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 19(8): e1004085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085

Jacques, S. L. (2013). Optical properties of biological tissues: A review. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 58(11), R37–61. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/11/R37

Karu, T. I. (1999). Primary and secondary mechanisms of action of visible to near-IR radiation on cells. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 49(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1011-1344(98)00219-X

Lever, J. R., Ocobock, C., Smith-Hale, V., Metoyer, C. J., Huebner, A., Wagle, J. P., & Hauenstein, J. D. (2025). A preliminary investigation of the efficacy of far-infrared-emitting garments in enhancing objective and subjective recovery following resistance exercise. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 10(3), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10030280

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2014). 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2(2), MR000033. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3

MedCentral. (2023, December 12). Latest practice guidelines on the management of low back pain. MedCentral. https://www.medcentral.com/.../latest-practice-guidelines...

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Pinto, Henrique D.1,2; Vanin, Adriane A.1,2; Miranda, Eduardo F.1; Tomazoni, Shaiane S.3; Johnson, Douglas S.4; Albuquerque-Pontes, Gianna M.1,5; Aleixo, Ivo de O. Junior1,2; Grandinetti, Vanessa dos S.5; Casalechi, Heliodora L.1,2; de Carvalho, Paulo de Tarso C.1,2,5; Leal Junior, Ernesto Cesar P.1,2,5. Photobiomodulation Therapy Improves Performance and Accelerates Recovery of High-Level Rugby Players in Field Test: A Randomized, Crossover, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(12):p 3329-3338, December 2016. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001439

Qaseem, A., Wilt, T. J., McLean, R. M., & Forciea, M. A. (2017). Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: A clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 166(7), 514–530. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2367

Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2020). The interrelationship between research integrity, conflict of interest, and the rights and responsibilities of researchers. In D. B. Resnik & C. C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Research ethics (pp. 145–162). Springer.

Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201199. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199

Taylor, D. N., Winfield, T., & Wynd, S. (2020). Low-Level Laser Light Therapy Dosage Variables vs Treatment Efficacy of Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions: A Scoping Review. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 19(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2020.06.002

Tomazoni, S. S., Almeida, M. O., Bjordal, J. M., Stausholm, M. B., Machado, C. D. S. M., Leal-Junior, E. C. P., & Costa, L. O. P. (2020). Photobiomodulation therapy does not decrease pain and disability in people with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Journal of physiotherapy, 66(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2020.06.010

Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Premarket notification 510(k). https://www.fda.gov/.../prema.../premarket-notification-510k

World Health Organization. (2023). WHO guideline for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain in adults in primary and community care settings. World Health Organization.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240081789

Wu, A., March, L., Zheng, X., Huang, J., Wang, X., Zhao, J., Blyth, F. M., Smith, E., Buchbinder, R., & Hoy, D. (2020). Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Annals of Translational Medicine, 8(6), 299. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.02.175

Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Schonstein, E., Heidari, K., Rashidian, A., Pennick, V., Akbari-Kamrani, M., Irani, S., Shakiba, B., Mortaz Hejri, S. A., Mortaz Hejri, S. O., & Jonaidi, A. (2008). Low level laser therapy for nonspecific low-back pain. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008(2), CD005107. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005107.pub4

Zadik, Y., Arany, P.R., Fregnani, E.R. et al. Systematic review of photobiomodulation for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines. Support Care Cancer 27, 3969–3983 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04890-2