Parameter Reproducibility in Photobiomodulation.

Abstract

Photomedicine and Laser SurgeryVol. 34, No. 3 Guest EditorialOpen AccessParameter Reproducibility in PhotobiomodulationJan Tunér and Peter A. JenkinsJan TunérPrivate dental clinic, Grangesberg, Sweden.Search for more papers by this author and Peter A. JenkinsSpectraVET, Inc., Education & Technology, Lanwdale, North Carolina.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:8 Mar 2016https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2016.4105AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Reproducibility is a key factor in science.1 A single medical scientific result is not enough for reliability; it takes at least another identical study with the same outcome to make the claims credible. A major problem in photobiomodulation (PBM) is the lack of proper reporting of the involved parameters and, further to that, the control of the parameters. Too often, the reporting of the parameters used in a study is incomplete, and the use of specific parameters is ad hoc. Parameters seem to be those of the equipment at hand, rather than being chosen specifically to, for example, replicate those used in a previous study or fall within an already-known effective range applicable to current work. This lack of quality control among too many researchers and scientific journals creates an obstacle in finding reproducibility in meta-analyses. Frequently, such efforts end up with the conclusion that no definite conclusion can be made, because of the great variety in the reported parameters, no matter how many positive studies there are.Researchers do not have to stick to parameters used in other studies; they are free and encouraged to explore all the available parameters within the supposed therapeutic window. Without a full and correct reporting of all pertinent light source parameters, however, nobody can perform a control study even of the best studies. What is needed is a close cooperation between researchers and journals. The definition of light parameters is only basic physics, and no guesswork is required. However, researchers in the PBM field generally come from professions for which physics has not been on the curriculum. Although they are very qualified in their own professional field, they may lack understanding of PBM. Our suggestion is to include a physicist on the team to make sure that the actual “medicine” to be tested is not flawed before the study even has begun.The majority of submitted articles have to undergo one or several revisions before being accepted; however, often the parameters are still incorrect or incomplete upon publication. Therefore, solving the problem requires vigilance and action at multiple levels. Reviewers must assess the reported parameters and request revision where they do not meet the requirements of the journal; and journal editors and staff must ensure that only articles that meet their stated standards are published. And it is important not to forget the obligation of manufacturers to report the parameters of their devices accurately and honestly, and to refrain from highlighting factors that sound good in marketing materials but that lend little to the utility of the device and/or reproducibility of outcomes. Ultimately, however, it is the author who is charged with the fundamental responsibility, to first obtain and then report an accurate and complete set of parameters, thus ensuring that the work may be reproduced and, therefore, add to the overall body of knowledge. In other words, it is the author's responsibility to produce good science.The most flawed parameters are the energy (J) and the dose (J/cm2). Too often, only one of them is reported, but both need to be within the so-called therapeutic window. A seemingly reasonable dose may just be the effect of a thin fiber,2 and a high energy may be dispersed over a large area, thus resulting in a low dose.3 Qualified readers of an article may be able to calculate what is missing if other parameters such as the spot size (cm2) is reported. However, anyone should be able to have access to all the necessary parameters. Jenkins and Carroll4 proposed a tabular format for reporting parameters in a clear, concise, comprehensive, and standardized manner.Tables 1–3 show the work of some fictional authors, Smith et al., who use the tabular method to include necessary detail for their treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.Table 1. Device InformationManufacturerXYZ Co.ModelXYZ-810Year produced2016Number of emitters1Emitter typeLaser diode GaAlAsBeam deliveryEmitter mounted in hand-held probe with beam-correction optics and convex glass lensTable 2. Irradiation ParametersParameter (unit)ValueMeasurement method or information sourceCenter wavelength (nm)810Manufacturer's specificationSpectral bandwidth (nm)±3Manufacturer's specificationOperating modeContinuous WaveManufacturer's specificationRadiant power (mW)100Independent testingAperture diameter (cm)0.8Manufacturer's specificationIrradiance at aperture (mW/cm2)200Independent testingTable 3. Treatment ParametersParameter (unit)ValueAdditional notesBeam spot size at target (cm2)0.5 Irradiance at target (mW/cm2)200 Exposure duration (sec)40Per pointRadiant exposure (J/cm2)8Per pointRadiant energy (J)4Per pointNumber of points irradiated3Transverse carpal ligament, 1× directly over median nerve, and 1× each on the ulnar and radial sides of the median nerve.Area irradiated (cm2)0.5 × 3 pointsTotal area covered per session is 1.5 cm2Application techniqueSkin contactFirm pressure appliedNumber and frequency of treatment sessions1× daily for 5 days Total radiant energy (J)12/day (60 total) Although the inclusion of all these parameters would significantly improve the quality of research, the complexity of the light parameters often requires the inclusion of details such as the polarization, shape, profile, and divergence of the beam, and – for switched/pulsed beams – the frequency, pulse duration, duty cycle, and waveform. Such details should be available to authors from the equipment manufacturer or as a product of in-house and/or independent measurement and testing.In the Abstract to their article, our fictional authors Smith et al. write that “…an 810 nm, 100 mW continuous wave laser, spot size 0.5 cm2, was placed in contact with the skin and firm pressure applied. Three points over the transverse carpal ligament were irradiated for 40 sec each, delivering 4 J (8 J/cm2) per point, for a total energy of 12 J per session. Laser irradiation was performed once daily for 5 days, with the total energy delivered being 60 J.” This is quite a comprehensive summary of the important parameters, and – although not a complete list – practically sufficient within itself to allow the laser irradiation aspect of this study to be accurately reproduced.At the very least, these are the parameters that should be included in the Abstract. The majority of readers of a study actually only read the PubMed abstract, and abstracts with incorrect or omitted parameters can be misleading. The creation of “PubMed Commons” offers an opportunity for researchers and readers to add pertinent information about studies being incomplete or flawed; however, we should not rely on this to remedy such fundamental errors and omissions.Being meticulous about the reporting of light parameters is mandatory but not sufficient. When information about previous studies in the area, in the Introduction and the Discussion, is added, readers are often left in the dark. With the great variation in the possible combinations of light parameters, apples and bananas are too frequently compared. Our suggestion is to include the most important parameters when referring to other studies. For example, Jones et al. (810 nm, 100 mW, 3 points ×4 J [8 J/cm2] per point, 12 J total, 1× daily ×5 days). Such writing will make it possible for a reader to understand the relevance of the reference in its context.On the subject of references, we can see room for improvement. References of very old articles can be justified as historical references. However, with ∼20 PBM articles in PubMed in 2000 and 4200 in 2016, it is obvious that literature reviews and meta-analyses from the 1990s are less relevant.Finally, there must be an end to the nomenclature confusion. The topic has been discussed in this journal before,5 and the implementation of a common nomenclature is important for “outsiders” to understand what we are talking about.PBM has been used for >50 years, and no serious side effects have been reported. In a decade when side effects of pharmaceuticals are alarming and antibiotic resistance is a threat, this treatment modality appears to be much needed in the medical armamentarium, but first the scientific strength needs to be increased, and this can only occur if the basic use and reporting of light parameters are improved.References1 McNutt M. Journals unite for reproducibility. Science 2014;346:679–679. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Brosseau L, Wells G, Marchand S, et al. Randomized controlled trial on low level laser therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand. Lasers Surg Med 2005;36:210–219. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Roberts DB, Kruse RJ, Stoll SF. The effectiveness of therapeutic Class IV (10 W) laser treatment for epicondylitis. Lasers Surg Med 2013;45:311–317. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Jenkins PA, Carroll JD. How to report low-level laser therapy (LLLT)/photomedicine dose and beam parameters in clinical and laboratory studies. Photomed Laser Surg 2011;29:785–787. Link, Google Scholar5 Anders JJ, Lanzafame RJ, Arany PR. Low-level light/laser therapy versus photobiomodulation therapy. Photomed Laser Surg 2015;33:183–184. Link, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byDental implant surface morphology, chemical composition, and topography following double wavelength (2780/940 nm) laser irradiation. An in vitro study1 January 2023 | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, Vol. 9, No. 1Therapeutic non-invasive brain treatments in Alzheimer’s disease: recent advances and challenges3 October 2022 | Inflammation and Regeneration, Vol. 42, No. 1Proteomic Investigation over the Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Mediated by Rose Bengal Against Staphylococcus aureus12 September 2022 | Photochemistry and PhotobiologyMost used photobiomodulation dosimetry parameters to treat oral mucositis after preconditioning for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis10 January 2022 | Supportive Care in Cancer, Vol. 30, No. 5Photobiomodulation by a new optical fiber device: analysis of the in vitro impact on proliferation/migration of keratinocytes and squamous cell carcinomas cells stressed by X-rays9 November 2020 | Lasers in Medical Science, Vol. 36, No. 7Dental implant surface temperatures following double wavelength (2780/940 nm) laser irradiation in vitro4 December 2020 | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, Vol. 7, No. 4The Effect of Laser Photobiomodulation on Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells21 December 2020 | Photochemistry and Photobiology, Vol. 97, No. 4Photobiomodulation by Near-Infrared 980-nm Wavelengths Regulates Pre-Osteoblast Proliferation and Viability through the PI3K/Akt/Bcl-2 Pathway15 July 2021 | International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 14808-Nm Near-Infrared Laser Photobiomodulation versus Switched-Off Laser Placebo in Major Aphthae Management: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial21 May 2021 | Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 11Experimental and Clinical Applications of Red and Near-Infrared Photobiomodulation on Endothelial Dysfunction: A Review9 March 2021 | Biomedicines, Vol. 9, No. 3In Vitro Evidences of Different Fibroblast Morpho-Functional Responses to Red, Near-Infrared and Violet-Blue Photobiomodulation: Clues for Addressing Wound Healing6 November 2020 | Applied Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 21Interaction between Laser Light and Osteoblasts: Photobiomodulation as a Trend in the Management of Socket Bone Preservation—A Review23 November 2020 | Biology, Vol. 9, No. 11Prevention and Treatment of Oral Mucositis in Cancer Patients Using Photobiomodulation (Low-Level Laser Therapy and Light-Emitting Diodes)26 March 2020Long-term effect of low-level diode laser irradiation on proliferation of stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth after cryopreservation protocol5 September 2019 | Laser Physics, Vol. 29, No. 10Applications of Photobiomodulation Therapy to Musculoskeletal Disorders and Osteoarthritis with Particular Relevance to Canada Denis J. Gendron and Michael R. Hamblin1 July 2019 | Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery, Vol. 37, No. 7Examining tumor modulating effects of photobiomodulation therapy on head and neck squamous cell carcinomas27 October 2020 | Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 7Laser photobiomodulation is more effective than ultrasound therapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a comparative study17 October 2018 | Lasers in Medical Science, Vol. 34, No. 4A preliminary comparison between the effects of red and infrared laser irradiation on viability and proliferation of SHED18 August 2018 | Lasers in Medical Science, Vol. 34, No. 3Is there a measure for low power laser dose?6 November 2018 | Lasers in Medical Science, Vol. 34, No. 1Photobiomodulation as a potential therapeutic strategy for improving cognitive and functional outcomes in traumatic brain injuryPhotobiomodulation therapy in the management of oral mucositis: search for the optimal clinical treatment parameters22 May 2018 | Supportive Care in Cancer, Vol. 26, No. 10Improved Wound Remodeling Correlates with Modulated TGF-beta Expression in Skin Diabetic Wounds Following Combined Red and Infrared Photobiomodulation Treatments23 April 2018 | Photochemistry and Photobiology, Vol. 94, No. 4Learning from clinical phenotypes: Low-dose biophotonics therapies in oral diseases26 February 2018 | Oral Diseases, Vol. 24, No. 1-2Low-level laser irradiation induces in vitro proliferation of stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth12 October 2017 | Lasers in Medical Science, Vol. 33, No. 1PBM. Theoretical and Applied Concepts of Adjunctive Use of LLLT/PBM Within Clinical Dentistry22 September 2017Special Issue on Stem Cells and Photobiomodulation Therapy Praveen R. Arany1 November 2016 | Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Vol. 34, No. 11Pellucid as Mud: Making Research More Transparent Raymond J. Lanzafame4 May 2016 | Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Vol. 34, No. 5 Volume 34Issue 3Mar 2016 InformationCopyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Jan Tunér and Peter A. Jenkins.Parameter Reproducibility in Photobiomodulation.Photomedicine and Laser Surgery.Mar 2016.91-92.http://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2016.4105creative commons licensePublished in Volume: 34 Issue 3: March 8, 2016PDF download