REF-1764 · Vanin et al., 2018 · Lasers in Medical Science, · Paper · PubMed

Laser and LED light therapy (photobiomodulation) showed some effect over placebo on time to exhaustion, repetitions, isometric peak torque and blood lactate in healthy people, at very low to moderate certainty, in a review of 39 randomised trials (861 participants), 28 of them pooled; the abstract gives no effect sizes, and its dose ranges (655-950 nm; 20-60 J for small and 60-300 J for large muscle groups) describe where positive trials clustered, not a tested optimum

Main caveat: The authors' own: low methodological quality, small samples, varied exercise protocols and light parameters.
fairly strong evidenceMeasured on non-athletes to trained athletesRead from the abstract only

Vanin, Leal-Junior and colleagues set out to establish whether phototherapy (low-level laser therapy, light-emitting diode therapy or both) improves muscular performance and reduces muscular fatigue in healthy people, when in an exercise protocol it should be applied, and which light parameters work.

They searched five databases to March 2017 for randomised trials, assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence, and contacted authors for missing details. Of 39 included trials (861 participants), 28 entered meta-analyses against placebo for time to exhaustion, number of repetitions, isometric peak torque and blood lactate.

The authors report some effect in favour of phototherapy on these outcomes, at a quality of evidence from very low to moderate, and call for further research because of weak methods, small samples and the variety of exercise protocols and light settings.

Describing the trials rather than pooling them, they note that positive results came with lasers, LEDs or both at 655-950 nm, mostly with 20-60 J for small muscle groups, 60-300 J for large ones and up to 200 mW per diode.

Participants

39 randomised trials, 861 healthy participants; 28 trials in the meta-analyses.
Age, sex, training status and sports: not in the abstract.

Protocol

Search: PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science, to March 2017; randomised clinical trials.
What was applied: low-level laser, LED, or both, at 655-950 nm across the trials (from the authors' summary of positive results). The abstract gives doses per small or large muscle group, so the light was aimed at muscles, but it does not name the muscles, say whether the device touched the skin, or say whether it was given before, during or after exercise, although timing was one of the review's aims.
Comparison: placebo.
Outcomes pooled: time to exhaustion, number of repetitions, isometric peak torque, blood lactate.
Quality: risk of bias and quality of evidence assessed for the included trials; the tools are not named in the abstract.
Analysis: descriptive tables for all 39 trials; meta-analysis against placebo for the 28 with poolable data. Effect measures, model and heterogeneity are not in the abstract.

Key Results

Outcome (light vs placebo)Result in the abstract
Time to exhaustionsome effect in favour of light; size not given
Number of repetitionssome effect in favour of light; size not given
Isometric peak torquesome effect in favour of light; size not given
Blood lactatesome effect in favour of light; size not given
Quality of evidence across these outcomesvery low to moderate
Light parameters among positive trials (descriptive, not pooled): laser, LED or both; 655-950 nm; mostly 20-60 J for small muscle groups and 60-300 J for large muscle groups; up to 200 mW per diode.
Which outcome carried which certainty, and the result on timing of application, are not in the abstract.

Practical Application

Laser or LED light on the muscles showed "some effect" over placebo on time to exhaustion, repetitions and isometric strength in healthy people, at very low to moderate certainty; the abstract gives no effect sizes, so how large the gain is cannot be said. Blood lactate, the fourth outcome, is a marker, not performance.
The dose ranges are a description, not a prescription: 20-60 J for small and 60-300 J for large muscle groups is where the positive trials clustered; no dose was compared with another in a pooled test.
Inference, not tested here: these settings refer to a laser or LED device applied to a muscle; they say nothing about a red-light panel across the room or a whole-body bed.
Under SYNTH-83: "tested, small and uncertain", not "it works" and not "a myth".

Limitations

The authors' own: low methodological quality, small samples, varied exercise protocols and light parameters.
No effect sizes, intervals or heterogeneity in the abstract; which outcome reached which certainty is not stated.
The dose ranges come from a description of positive trials, so they cannot separate dose from device, muscle or protocol.
How many of the included trials come from the authors' own group, funding, and any device-company ties are not in the abstract. Later meta-analyses of the topic (REF-1765 Luo 2022, REF-1766 Dutra 2022, REF-1767 Nascimento 2024, REF-1769 Qiu 2026, REF-1774 Zhai 2026) draw on the same small body of trials, so they are not independent confirmations of this one (our reading; the overlap is not quantified anywhere we read).
Search ended March 2017. Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
Two of this review's authors also wrote REF-1770, and its last author is the senior author of REF-1770 and REF-1772, whose papers state that he receives research support from the maker of the device they tested; this review's own competing-interest statement is not in the abstract and was not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a meta-analysis of randomised trials whose abstract reports its certainty finding (very low to moderate quality of evidence), which by the rubric holds a review at A- at most; the abstract gives no effect sizes, intervals or heterogeneity

Content correction 2026-11-11
2026-11-11: added from the abstract and the PubMed record; level A- (meta-analysis of randomised trials, certainty very low to moderate reported in the abstract).