Lasers and light-emitting diodes are used for a range of biomedical applications with many studies reporting their beneficial effects. However, three main concerns exist regarding much of the low-level light therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation literature; (1) incomplete, inaccurate and unverified irradiation parameters, (2) miscalculation of 'dose,' and (3) the misuse of appropriate light property terminology. The aim of this systematic review was to assess where, and to what extent, these inadequacies exist and to provide an overview of 'best practice' in light measurement methods and importance of correct light measurement. A review of recent relevant literature was performed in PubMed using the terms LLLT and photobiomodulation (March 2014-March 2015) to investigate the contemporary information available in LLLT and photobiomodulation literature in terms of reporting light properties and irradiation parameters. A total of 74 articles formed the basis of this systematic review. Although most articles reported beneficial effects following LLLT, the majority contained no information in terms of how light was measured (73 %) and relied on manufacturer-stated values. For all papers reviewed, missing information for specific light parameters included wavelength (3 %), light source type (8 %), power (41 %), pulse frequency (52 %), beam area (40 %), irradiance (43 %), exposure time (16 %), radiant energy (74 %) and fluence (16 %). Frequent use of incorrect terminology was also observed within the reviewed literature. A poor understanding of photophysics is evident as a significant number of papers neglected to report or misreported important radiometric data. These errors affect repeatability and reliability of studies shared between scientists, manufacturers and clinicians and could degrade efficacy of patient treatments. Researchers need a physicist or appropriately skilled engineer on the team, and manuscript reviewers should reject papers that do not report beam measurement methods and all ten key parameters: wavelength, power, irradiation time, beam area (at the skin or culture surface; this is not necessarily the same size as the aperture), radiant energy, radiant exposure, pulse parameters, number of treatments, interval between treatments and anatomical location. Inclusion of these parameters will improve the information available to compare and contrast study outcomes and improve repeatability, reliability of studies.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 October 2025.
All research outputs
#21,807,993
of 32,692,245 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#850
of 1,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,009
of 329,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#18
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,692,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
