↓ Skip to main content

Effects of low-power light therapy on wound healing: LASER x LED

Overview of attention for article published in Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
198 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
298 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of low-power light therapy on wound healing: LASER x LED
Published in
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, July 2014
DOI 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20142519
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Emília de Abreu Chaves, Angélica Rodrigues de Araújo, André Costa Cruz Piancastelli, Marcos Pinotti

Abstract

Several studies demonstrate the benefits of low-power light therapy on wound healing. However, the use of LED as a therapeutic resource remains controversial. There are questions regarding the equality or not of biological effects promoted by LED and LASER. One objective of this review was to determine the biological effects that support the use of LED on wound healing. Another objective was to identify LED´s parameters for the treatment of wounds. The biological effects and parameters of LED will be compared to those of LASER. Literature was obtained from online databases such as Medline, PubMed, Science Direct and Scielo. The search was restricted to studies published in English and Portuguese from 1992 to 2012. Sixty-eight studies in vitro and in animals were analyzed. LED and LASER promote similar biological effects, such as decrease of inflammatory cells, increased fibroblast proliferation, stimulation of angiogenesis, granulation tissue formation and increased synthesis of collagen. The irradiation parameters are also similar between LED and LASER. The biological effects are dependent on irradiation parameters, mainly wavelength and dose. This review elucidates the importance of defining parameters for the use of light devices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 295 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 14%
Researcher 28 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 9%
Other 21 7%
Other 53 18%
Unknown 83 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 8%
Engineering 22 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 5%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 97 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 111. 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 04 June 2024.
All research outputs
#389,476
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#3
of 6 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,214
of 243,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one scored the same or higher as 3 of them.
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 243,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them