The evidence behind our care — stated plainly, both ways.
We'd rather show you the actual published research, including its limits, than lean on "30 years of research" as a slogan. According to PubMed, here is what the literature currently shows for our two most-discussed therapies.
The better-supported therapy in our lineup
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) / photobiomodulation (PBM) has one of the more encouraging evidence bases among non-invasive neuropathy treatments. According to PubMed, here's a representative sample of the published research:
Evidence-based consensus on the clinical application of photobiomodulation — Maghfour et al., Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2025.
A 21-expert multidisciplinary panel, using a structured Delphi consensus process, concluded that PBM is a safe treatment modality and "an effective treatment option for peripheral neuropathy," among other conditions.
PMID 40253006 · DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2025.04.031
Low level laser therapy for patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy — A systematic review — M, Ummer V, Maiya & Hande, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome, 2019.
Reviewing 6 qualifying studies, the authors found "LLLT has a positive effect in controlling diabetic neuropathic pain."
PMID 31405692 · DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2019.07.035
Effectiveness of low-level laser on carpal tunnel syndrome — Li et al., Medicine (Baltimore), 2016 meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials (531 wrists).
At 12 weeks, the laser-treated group showed statistically significant improvement in grip strength, pain (VAS), and sensory nerve conduction versus control — though the authors note one included study carried disproportionate weight and call for more standardized trials.
PMID 27495063 · DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004424
Low level light therapy/photobiomodulation for diabetic peripheral neuropathy — Wang et al., BMJ Open, 2022.
This is a registered protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42021276056) — it describes planned methodology, not final results. We include it to be transparent that rigorous, dedicated review work in this exact area is actively underway.
PMID 36104132 · DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059476
According to PubMed. Cited for general orientation, not as a guarantee of outcome for any individual patient. Evidence quality and effect sizes vary by study; ask your provider what applies to your specific case.
A more honest, more mixed picture
PRP is popular, but the highest-quality trial evidence to date is genuinely mixed. We'd rather tell you that upfront than let a "regenerative medicine" label do the talking.
Effect of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Placebo Injection on Pain and Medial Tibial Cartilage Volume in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: The RESTORE Randomized Clinical Trial — Bennell et al., JAMA, 2021.
In this 288-patient, placebo-controlled, fully blinded RCT — one of the largest and most rigorous PRP trials to date — PRP injections showed no statistically significant difference from saline placebo in pain reduction or cartilage volume at 12 months. Of 31 pre-specified secondary outcomes, 29 showed no significant difference. The authors concluded these findings "do not support use of PRP for the management of knee OA."
PMID 34812863 · DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19415
Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis — Bennell, Hunter & Paterson, Current Rheumatology Reports, 2017.
Reviewing 15+ RCTs, the authors found PRP is generally safe with "potential to provide symptomatic benefit... at least in the short term," with younger patients and less severe disease more likely to respond — but noted "no definitive conclusions can be made" given methodological limitations and inconsistency between studies.
PMID 28386761 · DOI: 10.1007/s11926-017-0652-x
According to PubMed. This is why we offer PRP as one option among several, following individual physician evaluation, rather than positioning it as a proven solution. Ask your provider whether the current evidence supports PRP for your specific condition.
What we won't say
We won't call any therapy on this site a cure, promise a specific outcome, or use "regenerative medicine" language to imply something is proven when it isn't. Individual results vary. Some modalities discussed on this site — including PRP and exosome-based products — are not FDA-approved for the uses described and are offered only following individual clinical evaluation. This page is for general education; it is not medical advice and does not replace a conversation with your provider.
Read our full medical disclaimer →Questions about the evidence for your condition?
Bring them to your consultation. We'd rather have that conversation honestly than oversell you on a therapy that isn't right for your case.