我们饶有兴趣地阅读了Gomes等人的文章。题目:“膝骨关节炎受试者的运动计划结合电物理模式:随机,安慰剂对照临床试验。“Gomes等人。结论是,低水平激光治疗(LLLT)作为运动疗法的辅助手段并不能减轻膝关节骨关节炎的疼痛。我们认为戈麦斯等人。在试验的进行和报告中忽略了相关的激光治疗建议.Gomes等人。没有说明应用的每个处理点的焦耳数。我们计算了报告中其他激光信息的焦耳,发现根据世界激光治疗协会(WALT)指南,它的剂量太低。此外,我们发表了一项包含22项安慰剂对照试验的荟萃分析,这些试验证明在坚持和不坚持WALT指南的剂量之间在缓解疼痛效果方面存在显著差异.然而,既不是WALT指南,Gomes等人也没有提到我们的荟萃分析。此外,Gomes等人。没有说明是否测量了激光装置的输出功率,这令人担忧,因为在圣保罗市,在那里进行审判,已发现大多数激光设备输送的剂量低于制造商规定的剂量。总之,我们发现,在试验的进行和报告中,系统评价中关于有效和无效LLLT给药的最佳可用证据被忽略,并且激光设备可能尚未校准。
We read with interest the article by Gomes et al. entitled: \"Exercise program combined with electrophysical modalities in subjects with knee osteoarthritis: A randomised, placebo-controlled clinical
trial\". Gomes et al. concluded that the low-level laser therapy (LLLT) did not reduce knee osteoarthritis pain when applied as an adjunct to exercise therapy. We argue that Gomes et al. neglected relevant laser treatment recommendations in the conduct and reporting of the trial.Gomes et al. did not state the Joules per treatment spot applied. We calculated the Joules applied from other laser information in the report and found that it is too low of a dose according to the World Association for Laser Therapy (WALT) guidelines. Furthermore, we have published a meta-analysis of 22 placebo-controlled trials demonstrating a significant difference in pain-relieving effect between doses in adherence and non-adherence to the WALT guidelines. However, neither the WALT guidelines, nor our meta-analysis was mentioned by Gomes et al.Moreover, Gomes et al. did not state whether the output power of the laser device was measured, and this is concerning because in the city of São Paulo, where the
trial was conducted, most laser devices have been found to deliver less of a dose than specified by the manufacturers.In summary, we found that the best available evidence regarding effective and ineffective LLLT dosing from systematic reviews was neglected in the conduct and reporting of the
trial, and that the laser device may not have been calibrated.