This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled results from randomised trials testing low-level laser therapy, a light-based treatment, for lumbar disc herniation. It examined effects on leg pain and lower back pain, and rated the quality of the underlying evidence.
What was studied?
Across five randomised controlled trials involving 845 patients, the review compared laser therapy against sham treatment, and laser therapy combined with usual care against usual care alone, looking at pain and disability outcomes.
What did they find?
Laser therapy was significantly more effective than sham treatment for both leg pain and lower back pain. Used alone in place of standard care it wasn't more effective than usual care, but added on top of it, it outperformed usual care alone for both pain and disability.
Why it matters
This tells us laser therapy isn't a replacement for standard, evidence-based care, but it may have a genuinely helpful role as an add-on alongside treatments already known to work.
Why we included it
It illustrates a useful way of judging newer therapies generally: not whether they work in isolation, but whether they add real value layered on top of treatments with an already established evidence base.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
Across five randomised controlled trials involving 845 patients, the review compared laser therapy against sham treatment, and laser therapy combined with usual care against usual care alone, looking at pain and disability outcomes.
What did they find?
Laser therapy was significantly more effective than sham treatment for both leg pain and lower back pain. Used alone in place of standard care it wasn't more effective than usual care, but added on top of it, it outperformed usual care alone for both pain and disability.
Why it matters
This tells us laser therapy isn't a replacement for standard, evidence-based care, but it may have a genuinely helpful role as an add-on alongside treatments already known to work.
Why we included it
It illustrates a useful way of judging newer therapies generally: not whether they work in isolation, but whether they add real value layered on top of treatments with an already established evidence base.