Efecto de la lámpara de luz infrarroja sobre el dolor. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis

Abstract

Objetivo: Determinar el efecto de la aplicación de luz infrarroja sobre la intensidad del dolor en pacientes adultos con dolor musculoesquelético agudo y crónico. Métodos: Se realizo una búsqueda en PubMed, EMBASE y Web of Science hasta enero de 2026. Estructurado bajo el formato PICO-S y las directrices PRISMA. Se incluyeron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA), donde se revisaron los estudios en 2 fases, title/abstract y full text, con dos revisores y un tercero para desempatar. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó con la herramienta Cochrane y la calidad metodológica con la escala PEDro. Resultados: se incluyeron 9 ECA con un total de 682 participantes. En el análisis del dolor a corto plazo (1-3 semanas), el grupo experimental mostró un efecto favorable, pero sin superioridad frente al control (SMD = 1,96; IC95% [0.86;3.06]; p < 0,05; I2=96.3%, p<0.001). A medio plazo (4 semanas), el grupo control mostró mayor reducción del dolor (SMD = 4,33; IC95% [2.80; 5.86]; I2=88,1%) que grupo el experimental (SMD = 2,49; IC95% [1.51; 3.47]; I2=90,1%) con un p = 0,0475. Y a largo plazo (12-13 semanas), el efecto analgésico se diluyó por completo, sin diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos (p = 0,5119). Conclusión: La lámpara de luz infrarroja ofrece un alivio sintomático y transitorio a corto plazo, pero no demuestra una eficacia clínica superior ni sostenida a medio y largo plazo en comparación con las intervenciones control. No debe emplearse como tratamiento prioritario o aislado, sino como coadyuvante preparatorio de modalidades activas y pasivas como el ejercicio o el masaje respectivamente.

Objective: To determine the effect of infrared light application on pain intensity in adult patients with acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to January 2026. The search was structured according to the PICO-S format and PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, and studies were reviewed in two phases: title/abstract and full text, with two reviewers and a third to break ties. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 682 participants were included. In the short-term pain analysis (1–3 weeks), the experimental group showed a favorable effect, but without superiority over the control group (SMD = 1.96; 95% CI [0.86; 3.06]; p < 0.05; I² = 96.3%, p < 0.001). In the medium term (4 weeks), the control group showed a greater reduction in pain (SMD = 4.33; 95% CI [2.80; 5.86]; I² = 88.1%) than the experimental group (SMD = 2.49; 95% CI [1.51; 3.47]; I² = 90.1%) with p = 0.0475. And in the long term (12–13 weeks), the analgesic effect completely diminished, with no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.5119). Conclusion: Infrared light therapy offers short-term, transient symptomatic relief, but does not demonstrate superior or sustained clinical efficacy in the medium and long term compared to control interventions. It should not be used as a primary or isolated treatment, but as a preparatory aid to active and passive modalities such as exercise or massage respectively.