↓ Skip to main content

Low-intensity laser therapy efficacy evaluation in FVB mice subjected to acute and chronic arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Low-intensity laser therapy efficacy evaluation in FVB mice subjected to acute and chronic arthritis
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10103-017-2235-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

João Paulo Mardegan Issa, Bianca Ferreira Trawitzki, Edilson Ervolino, Ana Paula Macedo, Lothar Lilge

Abstract

Rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune inflammation, has a high prevalence in the population, and while therapy is available, it required often injection of drugs causing discomfort to patients. This study evaluates the clinical and histological effect of low-intensity laser therapy (LILT) as an alternative treatment, in a murine model of acute and chronic inflammation. FVB mice received either a Zymosan A injection into one knee joint inducing acute inflammation, followed after 15 min or 24 h by LILT or a collagen bovine type II injection emulsified in "Freund's Complete Adjuvant" to induce chronic arthritis, followed at 4 weeks with multiple LILT sessions. LILT mediated by either 660, 808, or 905 nm and tissue response was evaluated based on clinical symptoms and histological analysis of inflammatory infiltrate and damage to the articular surfaces. LILT can be effective in elevating clinical symptoms, so Kruskal-Wallis testing indicated no significant differences between knees affected by acute arthritis and treated once with LILT and an injured knee without treatment (p > 0.05) for 660 and 808 nm with some improvements for the 905-nm LILT. Mice receiving two treatments for acute arthritis showed exacerbation of inflammation and articular resorption following therapy with a 660-nm continuous laser (p < 0.05). For chronic inflammation, differences were not noted between LILT treated and untreated injured knee joints (p > 0.05). Among the lasers, the 905 nm tends to show better results for anti-inflammatory effect in acute arthritis, and the 660 nm showed better results in chronic arthritis. In conclusion, LILT wavelength selection depends on the arthritis condition and can demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects for chronic arthritis and reduced resorption area in this murine model.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Engineering 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 18 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,215,480
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#94
of 1,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,012
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,317 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.