Abstract
With the increase in acceptance of low reactive-level laser therapy. or LLLT, as a valid medicoscientific subset, there is a corresponding increase in the number of papers appearlng in the literature. Unfortunately, the majority of these papers are marred by inaccurate and inconsistent reporting of parameters, and incorrect use of inappropriate terminology. The correct and accepted scientific units and their use in describing an experiment or clinical application are next discussed: the orthodox reporting of the incident laser power in watts or milliwatts; the spot size or irradiated area in square centimetres; the exposure time in seconds: and the incident energy, measured in joules; and their derivative terms, power density: energy; and energy density are examined, The importance of correct and accurate reporting of experimental parameters to enable repetition by another worker in the field is stressed. The author suggests that the disparity in parameter reporting can probably account for the different results from different groups working on the ‘same’ experiment. Ideas on a scientifically-based terminology are presented, including the pedigree of the term LLLT itself for the clinical therapy, and the general term of bioactivation to cover the study of the effects of LLLT at an in vitro level. The author concludes that correct and accurate reporting of well-designed LLLT studies in an acceptable and consistent terminology will help to solidify the acceptance of LLLT in the medicoscientific community.
