MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242563415 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003490

Low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis

2002· review· en· W4242563415 on OpenAlexaff
VV Vlassov, LM Pechatnikov, H. G. MacLehose

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectCochrane LibraryTuberculosisMEDLINEMeta-analysisFamily medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The main treatment for tuberculosis is antituberculous drugs. Low energy laser therapy is used as an adjunct to antituberculous drugs, predominantly in the former Soviet Union and India. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis in randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. To seek information about potential benefits or harms from observational studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (up to June 2001), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2001), EMBASE (1988 to December 2001), CINAHL (up to November 2001), PEDro (up to November 2001), the Science Citation Index (up to December 2001), National Centre for Science Information at the Indian Institute of Science (15 April 2002), electronic catalogue of the Central Medical Library (Moscow; 1988 to January 2002), the internet using 'Google' (21 January 2002), and reference lists of articles. We contacted relevant organizations and researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: (1) Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing low level laser therapy with no low level laser therapy in people with tuberculosis. We also conducted a subsidiary analysis of of the potential benefits and harms from observational studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from the studies. MAIN RESULTS: No randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the review. The potential benefits and harms from 29 observational studies involving over 3500 people are described. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We have not identified any well designed trials using low level laser therapy (LLLT) to treat tuberculosis. Therefore, the use of LLLT to treat tuberculosis is not supported by reliable evidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207