The WAIT Test™ › How to Evaluate a Device
The WAIT Test™: How to Evaluate an At-Home Red Light Therapy Device
On this page
- What is The WAIT Test™?
- How to run a full WAIT evaluation
- What to do when information is unavailable
- The four components, one by one
- Before You Choose a Device, WAIT
- How a Device Passes The WAIT Test™
- Inside The WAIT Test™
- Why The WAIT Test™ scores by condition
- The seven conditions
- Why the coat changes the result
- How the checks are scored
- A worked example: the hip
- Full worked evaluations: three real devices
- Other dogs and cats
- What counts as evidence
- Why the safety gate comes first
- Where the numbers come from
- How the standards were selected
- Where scientific uncertainty remains
- MedcoVet’s own measurements
- Conflict of interest
- The Highest Numbers Do Not Win
- What The WAIT Test™ can and can’t tell you
- Use The WAIT Test™ Before You Buy
- Frequently asked questions about The WAIT Test™
- Continue With The WAIT Test™
- A Clearer Standard for At-Home Red Light Therapy
- Evidence Citations
At-home red light therapy devices might look alike, but what matters is how much useful light actually reaches your target tissue. Product pages love to brag about LED counts, colors, and fancy features. None of that tells you if the device delivers the right kind or amount of light where you need it.
That’s why MedcoVet created The WAIT Test™, a repeatable method for judging at-home photobiomodulation devices.
What is The WAIT Test™?
The WAIT Test™ checks whether a red light therapy device can deliver a useful dose of light to the tissue that needs it. It has four components, and a device must pass all four:
Wavelengths
Is it the right kind of light for the target tissue?
The device must emit red or near-infrared light in a band that counts for the condition.Read the guide →Average Power
Is there enough light to treat the whole area?
The device’s true average optical output must cover the treatment area in one session.Read the guide →Irradiance
Is the light concentrated enough to deliver the dose in time?
The usable light at the skin must deliver the dose at each site within the time limit.Read the guide →Target Tissue
Does the light reach the target tissue?
The light must get past fur and be applied the way the condition needs.Read the guide →Each device is judged separately for each condition and coat, so the same device can pass for a wound and fail for a hip. A device passes only when it earns at least 75% of the available points in every component.
A device has to check all four boxes to prove it can actually treat the right tissue. The right wavelength alone won’t cut it if the power is weak, the irradiance is unknown, or the light never reaches the target.
And because a hip sits much deeper than a wound, The WAIT Test™ gives each device a verdict for each condition, not one verdict overall. A device that passes for a shallow wound can fail for a hip under a dark coat.
The WAIT Test relies on physics for a reason. Veterinary red light therapy devices have no FDA approval or clearance process. The FDA regulates animal devices for misbranding and safety, but it doesn’t require premarket clearance, and manufacturers aren’t even required to register these products. Be cautious of any pet device claiming “FDA approved” or “FDA cleared”; that approval doesn’t exist in this category. Wavelengths, average power, irradiance, and whether the light reaches the target are different: they’re physics-based, independently verifiable, and don’t require any agency sign-off. That’s exactly why WAIT exists.
The WAIT Test™ tackles the real question: does enough therapeutic light actually reach the tissue you want to treat? Maybe you’re aiming for surface issues like inflamed skin or wounds. Maybe you’re after deeper targets like joints or nerves. Light gets reflected, scattered, and absorbed along the way. Only a fraction of what leaves the device hits the real target. Wavelength, tissue type, body composition, skin color, treatment area, and placement all matter.
The WAIT Test™ won’t tell you the exact number of photons hitting every cell. But it does give you a clear, evidence-backed way to see if a device has a real shot at getting light from the source to your skin and the tissue you care about. The idea is simple: right light, measured delivery, practical path.
This page is the full method. It explains how to run an evaluation step by step, the data you need, the decision rules, what to do when information is missing, and where the method’s limits are. It then applies the method to real devices, including our own. Each component also has its own guide that explains the science.
How to run a full WAIT evaluation
Every evaluation follows the same seven steps, in the same order.
Step 1: Choose the situation
Pick the animal, the condition, and the coat. The headline results use WALT’s 50 lb reference dog; a 20 lb dog, an 80 lb dog, and a 10 lb cat are available as what-if scenarios. The condition is one of seven: wounds, shallow joints, elbow and stifle, shoulder, hip, back and neck, or IVDD. The coat is shaved, light, or dark (brown). Wounds are clipped, so they have no coat setting.
Step 2: Apply the safety gate
A device sold for home use must be eye-safe without goggles. Class 3B and 4 lasers and Risk Group 2–3 LEDs stop here: they’re marked Not safe for home use and aren’t scored for any condition. A laser with no published class needs more information: it can’t clear the gate until its class is published.
Step 3: Gather the required data
Collect what’s known about the device. Company specifications, MedcoVet measurements, and third-party sources (such as an FDA summary or the manual) all count. Use the table below to see which check each item feeds and whether it’s required.
| Data | Where to find it | Used by | Required? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Device type, and laser class or LED risk group | Label, manual, spec sheet | Safety gate | Required |
| Exact wavelengths in nanometers | Product page, manual | W1 | Required |
| Claims about the wavelengths | Product page, marketing | W2 | Required |
| Average optical power | Spec sheet | A1, A4 | Required |
| Pulse mode and full pulse details | Spec sheet | A2 | Required for pulsed devices |
| Power for each wavelength | Spec sheet | A3; near-infrared share in A4, I3, I4 | Required for multi-wavelength devices |
| Treatment (head) area at the skin | Spec sheet | A4, I1 | Required |
| Irradiance at the skin | Spec sheet | I1, I3, I4 | Required, or power and area to calculate it |
| Where irradiance was measured (distance and area) | Spec sheet, test report | I2 | Required |
| Thermal guidance | Manual | I4 | Required only above the irradiance cap |
| How the device gets past fur | Design, photos | T1 | Required for coated pets |
| How the device is applied (contact, flush) | Photos, manual | T2 | Required |
| Photos and videos of the device in use | Product page, ads | T3 | Reviewed when available |
| Independent test report | On request from the company | Not scored | Recommended |
Step 4: Work out the usable light at the skin
Usable light at the skin = device irradiance × coat color factor × fur factor. If the device doesn’t part the fur, only 25% of its light gets through. A dark (brown) coat passes 33% of what a light coat does. For a deep target, only the near-infrared share counts. The dose checks in Average Power and Irradiance all use this number.
Step 5: Score each component
Run the checks for each component in order: W1–W3, A1–A4, I1–I4, and T1–T3. Each check is a pass, a fail, or open (it depends on a figure that isn’t known yet). The four components are summarized below, and each one has its own guide.
Step 6: Apply the decision rules
- Pass mark: a device must clear the safety gate and earn at least 75% of the available points in every component. A strong component can’t make up for a weak one.
- Points: W1 20, W2 5, and W3 5 (when a device makes pulse-frequency claims); A1 10, A2 5, A3 5, A4 10; I1 10, I2 5, I3 10, I4 10; T1 5, T2 15, T3 5. Missing W1, A1, A4, I1, I3, I4, or T2 fails its component on its own; two 5-point misses in the same component can too.
- Open checks: a missing figure is worked out at its best and worst case. A device fails only if a component stays below 75% even in the best case; otherwise it needs more information.
- Score: the score out of 100 ranks devices and never overrides the result. When checks are open, it’s shown as a range: every open check failed at the low end, passed at the high end.
- Results: PASS, NEED MORE INFO, FAIL, or NOT SAFE FOR HOME USE, given separately for each situation.
Step 7: Record the result
Write down the claimed specifications, where each number came from (company, MedcoVet measurement, or third party), the result for each component, and any questions you couldn’t resolve. The worked evaluations below use exactly this format.
What to do when information is unavailable
Missing figures are worked out at their best and worst case. A check that depends on a missing figure is open: the device can’t pass while it’s open, but it hasn’t failed either. It fails only if a component stays below 75% even when every open check turns out favorably; otherwise it needs more information. Missing information never earns points.
| If this is missing | What happens | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Laser class (for a laser) | Needs more information: it can’t clear the safety gate until a class is published | Ask for the IEC 60825-1 class |
| Exact wavelengths | W1 stays open | Ask for nanometer values |
| Average optical power | A1 stays open; A4 is worked out from irradiance × area where possible | Ask for measured optical power |
| Power stated as “up to,” or not as average | Counts only as the best case; A1 stays open | Ask for measured average power |
| Pulse details | A2 stays open | Ask for peak power, pulse width, frequency, and duty cycle |
| Red/near-infrared split | A3 stays open; the dose math runs from all near-infrared to none | Ask for power at each wavelength |
| Head (treatment) area | Irradiance and time per site stay open | Ask for the area at the skin |
| Irradiance, and power and area | I1, I3, and I4 stay open | Ask for irradiance at the skin |
| Where irradiance was measured | I2 stays open | Ask for distance and area |
| Contact or set-distance use | T2 stays open | Check photos and instructions, or ask |
| Review of demonstrations | T3 is left out of the available points | Nothing; it’s reviewed when possible |
What’s required and what’s recommended
Everything in the safety gate and the checks is required: a device is scored on it. Some things make a device easier to trust but aren’t scored:
- An independent test report of the finished device
- An irradiance map showing how even the light is across the treatment area
- Irradiance for each wavelength, not just combined
- Output measured across a full session, not just at start-up
- The measurement instrument, calibration, and method
The four components, one by one
W – Wavelengths
Evaluation question: Is it the right kind of light for the target tissue?
Read more about red light therapy and wavelengths here:
/wait-test/wavelengths/
The quick answer
For the Wavelengths portion of The WAIT Test™, look for:
- Exact wavelengths reported in nanometers
- Red light around 620 to 680 nm for wounds and shallow joints such as the paw, carpus, and tarsus
- Near-infrared light around 800 to 900 nm for wounds and for deeper targets such as the elbow, stifle, shoulder, hip, and spine
- Both red and near-infrared wavelengths for devices intended to address a broad range of tissue depths
- A clear explanation of whether multiple wavelengths operate simultaneously
- Information showing how power is divided between wavelengths
- Research using the same or closely related wavelengths
- Supporting evidence for any wavelength outside these bands. The WAIT Test™ doesn’t count 940 or 980 nm toward the Wavelengths check. Superpulsed 905 nm lasers are scored against WALT’s superpulsed chart, which uses lower doses.
A device with just one wavelength might work well for specific uses. But if a device is meant for both surface and deeper tissues, it should include both red and near-infrared light, or clearly explain why it uses only one.
The wavelength must match the intended tissue and treatment goal. Then evaluate it alongside average power, irradiance, treatment time, and skin delivery.
The WAIT Test™ standard for Wavelengths
The Wavelengths component has two checks, plus a third for devices that make pulse-frequency claims. Each is scored separately for every condition.
W1. Emits a wavelength that counts for this target (20 points). Red (620 to 680 nm) counts only for wounds and shallow joints such as the paw, carpus, and tarsus. Deeper targets (elbow and stifle, shoulder, hip, back and neck, and IVDD) count only near-infrared (800 to 900 nm). The band edges are hard: 875 nm counts, and continuous light at 940 or 980 nm doesn’t. Superpulsed 905 nm lasers are the one exception: WALT gives them their own, lower doses, so their light is scored against WALT’s superpulsed chart. The exact wavelengths have to be known in nanometers.
W2. No unsupported wavelength claims (5 points). What the company says about its wavelengths has to match what the device emits and what the evidence supports.
W3. No unsupported pulse-frequency claims (5 points). Applies when a company claims special pulse frequencies, such as Nogier “resonance” settings. Claims the evidence doesn’t support cost points.
Superpulsed 905 nm lasers. A superpulsed laser fires very short, intense pulses at a low average power. WALT’s guidelines give these lasers their own chart with lower doses, for example 3 J/cm² for a hip instead of 9. The WAIT Test™ scores a superpulsed 905 nm laser against that chart and combines its contribution with the device’s other light by its share of the dose. Continuous 905 nm light, and light at 940 nm or longer, doesn’t count.
For a deep target, only the device’s near-infrared output counts in the Average Power and Irradiance dose checks.
Wavelength result
Pass or fail, per condition. W1 is worth 20 of the 25 points, so a device whose wavelengths don’t count for the target fails Wavelengths. Missing W2 alone, or W3 alone, costs 5 points and still passes. A device that fails both W2 and W3 fails Wavelengths.
The question to ask
What exact wavelengths does this device produce, and why were they selected for the tissues it claims to treat?
If the exact wavelengths aren’t known from the company, a measurement, or a third party, W1 stays open, and the device can’t pass the Wavelengths part of The WAIT Test™ until they are.
A – Average Power
Evaluation question: Is there enough light to treat the whole area?
Wavelength tells you what kind of light a device produces. Average power tells you how quickly the device emits optical energy. That optical energy is the initial light supply. The inflamed target tissue receives less and less energy after reflection, scattering, absorption, and other losses along the path.
Read more about red light therapy and average power here:
/wait-test/average-power/
The quick answer
For the Average Power portion of The WAIT Test™, look for:
- Average optical output power in watts or milliwatts
- Confirmation that the number describes light output, rather than electrical consumption
- Average power for each operating mode
- Peak power, pulse duration, frequency, and duty cycle for pulsed devices
- Total and per-wavelength output for devices using multiple wavelengths
- An explanation of how the output was measured (Hadis et al., 2016)
A higher number does not always mean a better device. You should consider average power alongside treatment area, irradiance, wavelength, treatment time, and whether the light reaches the skin.
The WAIT Test™ standard for Average Power
The Average Power component has four checks, worth 30 points in all. Each is scored separately for every condition.
A1. Average optical power known (10 points). The measured average optical power is known, whether the company publishes it, MedcoVet measures it, or a third party reports it (for example, an FDA summary or a joules table in the manual). Electrical wattage, a component rating, LED count, and peak power don’t count. A power stated as “up to,” or not stated as average, counts only as the best case, so A1 stays open.
A2. Pulse details known (5 points). A continuous device passes. A pulsed device needs its full pulse details: peak power, pulse duration, frequency, and duty cycle.
A3. Power known per wavelength (5 points). A multi-wavelength device needs its red/near-infrared split. A single-wavelength device passes.
A4. Enough power to cover the area in one session (10 points). After fur and coat losses, and counting only near-infrared for a deep target, the power must deliver the condition’s target dose over its whole treatment area within the session limit.
Company specifications, MedcoVet measurements, and third-party sources all count as information. MedcoVet’s current readings come from a solar power meter, which reads LED light high, so each one is scored across a range: the reading ÷ 20 (worst case) to ÷ 13 (best case). That’s an interim measure until the devices are re-measured with a thermopile power meter.
Average Power result
Pass or fail, per condition. A1 and A4 are worth 10 points each, so failing either one fails Average Power. A2 and A3 are worth 5 points each: missing one still passes, but missing both fails.
Questions to ask
What is the device’s average optical output power during normal treatment, and how was it measured?
For a pulsed device, also ask:
What are the peak power, pulse duration, frequency, and duty cycle?
For a dual-wavelength device, ask:
How much average power is produced by each wavelength?
If the company can’t answer and no measurement or third-party figure exists, A1 stays open, and the device can’t pass the Average Power part of The WAIT Test™ until the figure is known.
I – Irradiance
Evaluation question: Is the light concentrated enough to deliver the dose in time?
Average power tells you how much optical energy a device emits over time. Irradiance tells you how concentrated that power is when it reaches the skin. Inflamed tissue needs the right amount of light delivered across the right area and for the right length of time. Irradiance tells us how quickly light energy reaches each square centimeter of the treatment surface.
Read more about red light therapy and irradiance here: TBD
The quick answer
For the Irradiance portion of The WAIT Test™, look for:
- Average irradiance in mW/cm²
- Irradiance measured at the skin or intended treatment distance
- The size of the measured treatment area
- The operating mode and wavelengths used during measurement
- An explanation of the measurement method
- Information about uniformity throughout the treatment area
- Enough information to calculate the time required to deliver the intended dose
A number without a distance, treatment area, operating mode, and measurement method is incomplete.
The WAIT Test™ standard for Irradiance
The Irradiance component has four checks, worth 35 points in all. Each is scored separately for every condition and coat.
I1. Irradiance known or calculable (10 points). The irradiance is known from the company, a MedcoVet measurement, or a third party, or it can be calculated from average power and head area.
I2. Measurement conditions stated (5 points). The source says where the irradiance was measured: the distance and the area.
I3. Delivers the dose per site in time (10 points). Using the usable light at the skin, the device must deliver WALT’s target dose at each treatment site within 5 minutes (30 for wounds).
I4. Enough light at the skin, within the safe range (10 points). The usable light at the skin must be enough for 5 mW/cm² to reach the target’s depth: 5 mW/cm² for wounds, about 11 for most joints and the spine, 17 for the shoulder, and 25 for the hip. The device must also stay under the test’s irradiance cap unless the company gives thermal guidance.
Company specifications, MedcoVet measurements, and third-party sources all count. When the red/near-infrared split or head area isn’t known, usable light and time per site are worked out at best and worst case.
Irradiance result
Pass or fail, per condition. I1, I3, and I4 are worth 10 points each, so failing any one of them fails Irradiance. I2 is worth 5 points: missing it costs points but still passes.
Questions to ask
What is the average irradiance at the actual treatment surface, and how was it measured?
Also ask:
At what distance was this measurement taken?
Does the number represent the average across the treatment area or the strongest point?
How long does the device take to deliver the radiant exposure required by its protocol?
If the irradiance isn’t known and can’t be calculated, I1 stays open, and the device can’t pass the Irradiance part of The WAIT Test™ until it is.
T – Target Tissue
Evaluation question: Does the light reach the target tissue?
The T in The WAIT Test™ asks whether the light actually reaches the tissue that needs it: does it get past fur, is it applied the way the condition needs, and does the company show it being used that way?
Skin contact matters most for joints and the spine. For those conditions, The WAIT Test™ requires the device to sit flush on the skin, so a panel used from a distance can’t pass T there. For a wound that shouldn’t be touched, a non-contact or spacer setup can be the right way to apply the light.
Read more about red light therapy and reaching the target tissue here: TBD
The quick answer
- Light should reach bare or uncovered skin.
- Clothing, hair, fur, bandages, covers, and other materials can reduce or change delivery.
- Contact devices should make consistent contact with the skin.
- Flexible devices should account for gaps caused by curves and body contours.
- Non-contact devices should state the correct treatment distance.
- Irradiance should be measured where the skin will be, not only at the LEDs.
- Device specifications should reflect required covers, spacers, lenses, or accessories.
- Treatment instructions should explain when direct contact is appropriate and when to avoid it.
The WAIT Test™ standard for Target Tissue
The Target Tissue component has three checks, worth 25 points in all. Each is scored separately for every condition and coat.
- T1. Gets light through fur (5 points). For a coated pet, the device parts the fur so its light reaches the skin. If it sits on top of the fur, it fails T1, and the dose math in Average Power and Irradiance counts only 25% of its light.
- T2. Applied the way this condition needs (15 points). For joints and the spine, the device has to sit flush on the skin. A device that can’t sit flush on the skin fails. If the company doesn’t say whether it’s used in contact or at a set distance, T2 stays open.
- T3. Honest demonstrations (5 points). The company’s photos and videos show the device used the way it must be used to deliver the dose, not held inches away, resting on the coat, or moved around. Until a device’s demonstrations have been assessed, T3 is left out rather than counted as a fail.
Pass or fail, per condition. T2 is worth 15 of the 25 points, so a device that can’t be applied the way the condition needs fails Target Tissue. T1 and T3 are worth 5 points each: missing one still passes, but missing both fails. A device that sits on the fur also loses most of its light in the Average Power and Irradiance dose checks, which is where fur usually costs a device its pass.
The question to ask
Can the company show how much light reaches the skin under the conditions in which the device will actually be used?
If the company can’t show it, look hard at its photos, videos, and instructions. They decide T1, T2, and T3.
Before You Choose a Device, WAIT
The four parts of The WAIT Test™ work together. Each one answers a different question about the light a device delivers.
| Component | The question it answers |
|---|---|
| W – Wavelengths | Is it the right kind of light for the target tissue? |
| A – Average Power | Is there enough light to treat the whole area? |
| I – Irradiance | Is the light concentrated enough to deliver the dose in time? |
| T – Target Tissue | Does the light reach the target tissue? |
No single specification can answer all four questions.
Appropriate wavelengths cannot compensate for missing power information. High average power does not show how that power is distributed. Irradiance measured at the LEDs may not represent what reaches the skin. A strong device can still deliver very little useful light to the target when clothing, hair, fur, distance, or poor positioning interferes.
The complete WAIT Test™ shows whether the specifications describe a clear, measurable treatment.
How a Device Passes The WAIT Test™
Each device gets one verdict for each situation: the condition being treated (wounds, shallow joints, elbow and stifle, shoulder, hip, back and neck, or IVDD) and the coat over the area (shaved, light, or dark). Within each situation, 13 checks are grouped under the four components:
- W1–W3: the wavelengths count for this target, with no unsupported wavelength or pulse-frequency claims.
- A1–A4: average power, pulse details, and power per wavelength are known, and there’s enough power to cover the area in one session.
- I1–I4: irradiance is given with its measurement conditions, and the usable light at the skin delivers the dose per site in time and reaches the target’s depth.
- T1–T3: the device gets light through fur, is applied as the condition needs, and is shown being used honestly.
A device passes only if it clears the safety gate and earns at least 75% of the available points in each of W, A, I, and T, so a strong component can’t make up for a weak one. It fails if a component stays below 75% even when every missing figure turns out favorably. Otherwise, if a missing figure could still decide the result, it needs more information. The score out of 100 ranks devices; it never overrides the result.
Before any scoring, one safety gate applies: a device sold for home use must be eye-safe without goggles. Class 3B and 4 lasers and Risk Group 2–3 LEDs are marked Not safe for home use and aren’t scored. A laser with no published class needs more information: it can’t clear the gate until its class is published.
The sections below go inside the test: why it scores by condition, what each condition asks of a device, how the coat changes the result, how the checks are weighted, and where every number comes from.
See how every device does, condition by condition, in The WAIT Test™ Device Scorecard.
The Device Scorecard is where these rules are applied: pick your pet’s size, condition, and coat, and every score is explained check by check.
✅ PASS
The device earns at least 75% of the points in every component for that condition and coat.
🚨 FAIL
The device falls short in at least one component for that condition and coat, even if every missing figure turns out as favorably as possible. A device can fail for a hip and still pass for a wound.
❔ NEED MORE INFO
Nothing has failed yet, but a missing figure could still decide the result. The device can’t pass until the company, a measurement, or a third party supplies it.
⛔ NOT SAFE FOR HOME USE
The device is sold for home use but isn’t eye-safe without goggles: a Class 3B or 4 laser, or a Risk Group 2–3 LED. It isn’t scored for any condition.
Missing information never earns points. A device with open checks can’t pass until the figures are supplied, but it isn’t failed for them unless it would fail even in the best case.
Inside The WAIT Test™
The four component guides explain the science behind each component. This part explains the test itself: what it measures, why it gives a separate verdict for each condition, and where every threshold comes from.
Why The WAIT Test™ scores by condition
Red light therapy only works when enough light of the right kind reaches the tissue that needs it. That target is different for every condition. A wound sits at the surface. A paw or carpus joint sits a few millimeters down. A hip sits under skin, fat, and muscle, and only a small share of the light that enters the skin ever gets there.
Each condition also needs a different dose, covers a different area, and takes a different number of treatment sites. A device that easily treats a 20 cm² wound may not have the power to cover a 100 cm² stretch of spine, or the irradiance to push enough light down to a hip.
One overall score would hide all of that. A device could look “good” on average while being unable to treat the condition your pet actually has. So The WAIT Test™ asks a narrower question each time: can this device deliver a useful dose for this condition, under this coat? The answer is one verdict per situation, not one verdict per device.
The current results show how much this matters. For WALT’s 50 lb reference dog, here is how many of the 19 devices compared pass in each situation, and how many need more information:
| Condition | Shaved | Light coat | Dark (brown) coat |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wounds (clipped) | 3 pass · 8 need info | – | – |
| Shallow joints | 2 pass · 8 need info | 1 pass · 5 need info | 1 pass · 2 need info |
| Elbow & stifle | 1 pass · 5 need info | 1 pass · 2 need info | 1 pass · 1 need info |
| Shoulder | 1 pass · 5 need info | 1 pass · 1 need info | 1 pass · 1 need info |
| Hip | 1 pass · 5 need info | 1 pass · 3 need info | 0 pass · 1 need info |
| Back & neck | 1 pass · 4 need info | 1 pass · 2 need info | 1 pass · 1 need info |
| IVDD | 1 pass · 5 need info | 1 pass · 2 need info | 1 pass · 1 need info |
The same device can pass for a wound and fail for a hip. Moving from a shaved area to a coat, or from a light coat to a dark one, removes devices from the list. That’s the point of scoring by condition: it tells you whether a device fits your situation, not whether it’s good in general.
The seven conditions
The WAIT Test™ groups common at-home treatments into seven conditions. Each one takes its dose and irradiance range from the WALT proposed veterinary guidelines for dogs.
| Condition | What it covers | WALT reference |
|---|---|---|
| Wounds | Superficial, acute, and difficult wounds (treat the periphery) | 1.8–3.0 J/cm² · 30–100 mW/cm² · 30–60 s per placement |
| Shallow joints | Paw (manus and pes), carpus, tarsus | 4.0–4.5 J/cm² · 50–100 mW/cm² · 1–2 points × 40–90 s |
| Elbow & stifle | Elbow, stifle | 4.0–4.5 J/cm² · 50–100 mW/cm² · 3–4 points × 40–90 s |
| Shoulder | Shoulder (glenohumeral) | 4.0–4.5 J/cm² · 50–100 mW/cm² · 3–4 points × 40–90 s (WALT groups it with elbow and stifle) |
| Hip | Hip (coxofemoral) | 9.0–10.0 J/cm² · 100–250 mW/cm² · 3–4 points × 40–90 s |
| Back & neck | Lumbar, thoracic, and neck (osteoarthritis, spondylosis, pain) | Lumbar and thoracic 4.0–4.5 J/cm² (8–10 points); neck 4.5–6.0 J/cm² (5–6 points) · 50–100 mW/cm² · 40–90 s |
| IVDD | Intervertebral disc disease | 4.0–6.0 J/cm² · 50–100 mW/cm² · 8–16 points × 60–90 s |
From those references, the test sets five numbers for each condition. Here they are for the 50 lb reference dog:
| Condition | Dose per site | Treatment area | Light reaching the target’s depth | Minimum usable light at the skin | Time limit per site | Session limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wounds | 1.8 J/cm² | 20 cm² | 100% | 5 mW/cm² | 30 min | 30 min |
| Shallow joints | 4 J/cm² | 10 cm² | 45% | ≈11 mW/cm² | 5 min | 10 min |
| Elbow & stifle | 4 J/cm² | 30 cm² | 45% | ≈11 mW/cm² | 5 min | 10 min |
| Shoulder | 4 J/cm² | 30 cm² | 30% | ≈17 mW/cm² | 5 min | 10 min |
| Hip | 9 J/cm² | 40 cm² | 20% | 25 mW/cm² | 5 min | 10 min |
| Back & neck | 4 J/cm² | 80 cm² | 45% | ≈11 mW/cm² | 5 min | 15 min |
| IVDD | 4 J/cm² | 100 cm² | 45% | ≈11 mW/cm² | 5 min | 24 min |
- Dose per site is the low end of WALT’s range for that condition.
- Treatment area is the skin the device has to cover in one session.
- Light reaching the target’s depth is the share of the light entering the skin that still reaches the target. It falls as the target gets deeper, which is why the hip has the lowest share.
- Minimum usable light at the skin is 5 mW/cm² (the light MedcoVet requires at the target) divided by that share. A hip needs five times more light at the skin than a wound.
- Time limits are MedcoVet’s practical limits for treating a pet at home: 5 minutes per site and a session limit for the whole area. The spine and IVDD get longer sessions because they cover more ground, and wounds get the most time.
Why the coat changes the result
For pets, the coat is often the biggest loss between the device and the skin. The WAIT Test™ scores every joint and spine condition three ways: shaved, light coat, and dark (brown) coat. Wounds are clipped, so they’re scored once, with no coat losses.
The test turns the coat into one number, the usable light at the skin:
Usable light at the skin = device irradiance × coat color factor × fur factor
- Fur factor: if a device doesn’t part the fur, only 25% of its light gets through the coat. A device that parts the fur, or a shaved area, keeps all of it.
- Coat color factor: a dark (brown) coat, assumed to mean darker skin too, passes 33% of the light a light coat does. Black coats pass less still and aren’t scored separately.
- Deep targets: only the device’s near-infrared share counts, because red light doesn’t reach that deep.
These factors are based on a study of 47 dogs that measured light through black, brown, and white coats. Coat color and shaving changed how much light got through; coat length didn’t, so the test doesn’t use it (Hochman-Elam et al., 2020).
Here’s what that means in practice. A pad rated 60 mW/cm² of near-infrared that rests on the coat delivers about 15 mW/cm² of usable light through a light coat, and only about 5 mW/cm² through a dark one. Both fall short of the 25 mW/cm² a hip needs.
How the checks are scored
Each component has its own checks, and each check is worth a set number of points. Some ask whether a figure is known, some do the dose math for the condition, and some look at how the light is delivered.
| Check | Points | What it asks | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| W1 Emits a wavelength that counts for this target | 20 | Red (620–680 nm) counts for wounds and shallow joints only; deeper targets count only near-infrared (800–900 nm); superpulsed 905 nm lasers are scored against WALT’s superpulsed chart | Condition |
| W2 No unsupported wavelength claims | 5 | Claims match what the device emits and what the evidence supports | Claims |
| W3 No unsupported pulse-frequency claims | 5 | Only for devices that claim special pulse frequencies, such as Nogier settings | Claims |
| A1 Average optical power known | 10 | Measured average optical power, from any reliable source | Information |
| A2 Pulse details known | 5 | Continuous devices pass; pulsed devices need full pulse details | Information |
| A3 Power known per wavelength | 5 | The red/near-infrared split; single-wavelength devices pass | Information |
| A4 Enough power to cover the area in one session | 10 | Usable power delivers the dose over the whole area within the session limit | Dose math |
| I1 Irradiance known or calculable | 10 | Irradiance is known, or power and area are | Information |
| I2 Measurement conditions stated | 5 | Distance and area of the irradiance measurement | Information |
| I3 Delivers the dose per site in time | 10 | Usable light delivers the dose per site within the time limit | Dose math |
| I4 Enough light at the skin, within the safe range | 10 | Usable light meets the condition’s minimum and stays under the irradiance cap unless the company gives thermal guidance | Dose math |
| T1 Gets light through fur | 5 | The device parts the fur rather than sitting on it | Delivery |
| T2 Applied the way this condition needs | 15 | Flush on the skin for joints and the spine | Delivery |
| T3 Honest demonstrations | 5 | Photos and videos show the device used the way it must be used | Claims |
The checks that decide whether a dose is possible carry the most points: W1, A1, A4, I1, I3, I4, and T2. Failing any one of them fails that component, and so the device fails for that condition. The others are worth 5 points each: one miss costs points, but two in the same component can fail it.
A device passes when it earns at least 75% of the available points in every component. A check that depends on a missing figure is open: the device fails only if a component stays below 75% even with every open check passed, and otherwise needs more information. The score out of 100 sums the points so devices can be ranked, but it never overrides the result.
A worked example: the hip
Take WALT’s 50 lb reference dog with a light coat and hip arthritis. The hip needs 9 J/cm² at each site, over about 40 cm², with at least 25 mW/cm² of usable light at the skin.
A device that passes: an LED pad that parts the fur and puts 1.3 W of near-infrared over a 14.5 cm² head, or about 89.7 mW/cm².
- I3: 9 J/cm² ÷ 0.0897 W/cm² = 100 seconds, about 1.7 minutes per site (limit 5).
- I4: 89.7 mW/cm² of usable light at the skin (needs 25 or more).
- A4: 9 J/cm² × 40 cm² = 360 J. 360 J ÷ 1.3 W = 277 seconds, about 4.6 minutes for the whole hip (limit 10).
A device that fails: a pad rated 60 mW/cm² of near-infrared that rests on the coat.
- Usable light at the skin: 60 × 25% = 15 mW/cm².
- I3: 9 J/cm² ÷ 0.015 W/cm² = 600 seconds, 10 minutes per site (limit 5). Fail.
- I4: 15 mW/cm² is below the 25 a hip needs. Fail.
The second pad might do well on a wound, where there’s no coat and the minimum is 5 mW/cm². That’s exactly why the verdict belongs to the condition, not the device.
Full worked evaluations: three real devices
Here is the complete WAIT evaluation for four devices, for WALT’s 50 lb reference dog with hip arthritis. Each follows the same seven steps and the same rules, including our own device. Every number’s source is noted; results are as shown on the comparison page.
MedcoVet Luma
Claimed specifications: LED, Risk Group 1. 635 nm red and 850 nm near-infrared. 1,300 mW of near-infrared at its strongest setting, continuous output, with power given for each wavelength. 14.5 cm² treatment head; measurement distance and area stated. Parts the fur and sits flush on the skin.
Evidence available: MedcoVet’s published specifications. No independent test report yet.
| Component | Light coat | Dark (brown) coat |
|---|---|---|
| W – Wavelengths | 100%: pass (850 nm counts for a hip) | 100%: pass |
| A – Average Power | 100%: pass (40 cm² in 4.6 min) | 67%: fail (A4: 14 min, limit 10) |
| I – Irradiance | 100%: pass (89.7 mW/cm² usable; 1.7 min per site) | 71%: fail (I3: 5.1 min per site, limit 5) |
| T – Target Tissue | 100%: pass | 100%: pass |
| Verdict | PASS, 100/100 | FAIL, 83/100 |
Unresolved questions: The specifications haven’t been independently measured. MedcoVet, which makes the device, judged its demonstrations (T3). The dark-coat result depends on the 33% coat-color factor, which is under clinical review.
B-Cure Laser Vet Pro
Claimed specifications: Laser, Class 1. 808 nm near-infrared. 83 mW average power, pulsed, with full pulse details. Single wavelength. 4.1 cm² treatment area, which works out to about 20.2 mW/cm². Rests on the coat rather than parting it; sits flush on the skin.
Evidence available: The manufacturer’s published specifications; the 83 mW is worked out from its stated 5.0 J per minute. Where the irradiance was measured isn’t stated.
| Component | Light coat | Why |
|---|---|---|
| W – Wavelengths | 100%: pass | 808 nm counts for a hip |
| A – Average Power | 67%: fail | A4: 40 cm² takes 289 min |
| I – Irradiance | 29–43%: fail | I2 open (not stated); I3: 29.6 min per site; I4: 5.1 mW/cm² usable, needs 25 |
| T – Target Tissue | 80%: pass | T1: sits on the fur |
| Verdict | FAIL, 65–70/100 |
Unresolved questions: The 25% fur factor is a single value for all coats. Even on a shaved hip, though, the B-Cure doesn’t pass: 83 mW can’t cover the area in time.
Hooga Red Light Therapy Mat for Dogs & Pets
Claimed specifications: LED mat. 660 nm red and 850 nm near-infrared. Irradiance of 60 mW/cm², with distance and area stated. Average power and power for each wavelength not published. Continuous output. 6,220 cm² mat. Rests on the coat.
Evidence available: The manufacturer’s published irradiance. Demonstrations not yet assessed.
| Component | Light coat | Why |
|---|---|---|
| W – Wavelengths | 100%: pass | 850 nm counts for a hip |
| A – Average Power | 17–100%: open | A1 and A3 not known; A4: at least 10 min |
| I – Irradiance | 43%: fail | I3: at least 10 min per site; I4: 0–15 mW/cm² usable, needs 25 |
| T – Target Tissue | 75%: pass | T1: sits on the fur; T3 not yet assessed |
| Verdict | FAIL, 55–77/100 |
Unresolved questions: A published average power and red/near-infrared split would settle A1 and A3, but they can’t rescue the result: even if all of its light were near-infrared, the Hooga would fall short on Irradiance. T3 hasn’t been assessed yet.
Novaa Light Pad: an example of NEED MORE INFO
Claimed specifications: LED pad. 660 nm red and 850 nm near-infrared. Irradiance of 120 mW/cm², with distance and area stated. 832 cm² pad. Average power, pulse details, and the red/near-infrared split not published. Rests on the coat; sits flush on the skin.
Evidence available: The manufacturer’s published irradiance. Demonstrations not yet assessed.
| Component | Light coat | Why |
|---|---|---|
| W – Wavelengths | 80%: pass | 850 nm counts for a hip; W2 lost for unsupported claims |
| A – Average Power | 0–100%: open | A1, A2, and A3 not known; A4: at least 5 min |
| I – Irradiance | 43–100%: open | I3: at least 5 min per site; I4: 0–30 mW/cm² usable, needs 25 |
| T – Target Tissue | 75%: pass | T1: sits on the fur; T3 not yet assessed |
| Result | NEED MORE INFO, 45–91/100 |
Unresolved questions: Everything turns on the near-infrared share. If most of the light is near-infrared, the Novaa could pass; if little of it is, it fails. Publishing average power and the red/near-infrared split would settle it.
Other dogs and cats
The headline results use WALT’s 50 lb reference dog, because that’s the size WALT’s canine chart is built around. The comparison page also lets you switch to a 20 lb dog, an 80 lb dog, or a 10 lb cat. These are what-if scenarios, not separate standards.
- 20 and 80 lb dogs: MedcoVet scales the treatment areas and target depths with body size, since WALT gives no rule for other weights. A smaller dog’s hip is shallower: about 16 mW/cm² of usable light at the skin is enough at 20 lb, but about 33 is needed at 80 lb. Larger dogs also get longer session limits for the back and neck (about 20 minutes) and IVDD (about 33 minutes) because there’s more spine to cover.
- 10 lb cat: uses WALT’s cat chart, which sets 2.7 J/cm² for joints and the spine, with draft treatment areas and depth factors. Cat targets are shallower, so the minimum usable light at the skin is lower, about 7.5 mW/cm² for most sites.
The comparison page also offers a WALT light-coat baseline (fur factor set to 100%). It assumes WALT’s doses already allow for an unclipped light coat, so you can see how much the fur assumption drives the results.
What counts as evidence
The WAIT Test™ uses every reliable source, and it’s explicit about which one each number came from.
- Company specifications, MedcoVet measurements, and third-party sources all count. Each number on the comparison page shows its source, such as “published,” “MedcoVet measurement,” or “from its linked FDA summary.”
- Missing figures are worked out at best and worst case. A device is never failed for a figure it might meet, and never passed on one it might not.
- Unassessed checks are left out, not failed. Until a device’s demonstrations have been reviewed, T3 is removed from the available points.
Why the safety gate comes first
Before any scoring, a device sold for home use must be eye-safe without goggles. Pet owners treat at home, often with the device close to the pet’s face and their own. Class 3B and 4 lasers and LEDs in Risk Group 2 or 3 fail this gate: they’re marked Not safe for home use and aren’t scored for any condition, however strong their output. A laser with no published class needs more information until its class is published.
Laser class and LED risk group describe eye hazard, not effectiveness. A device that clears the gate is then judged on the same checks as every other device.
Where the numbers come from
- Doses and irradiance ranges: the WALT proposed veterinary guidelines (canine chart, 50 lb reference dog; feline chart for cats).
- Minimum light at the target (5 mW/cm²): a MedcoVet threshold, not WALT’s chart minimums.
- Share of light reaching each target’s depth: MedcoVet estimates for each condition.
- Time limits: MedcoVet’s practical limits for treating at home, not research findings.
- Fur and coat-color factors: based on Hochman-Elam et al., 2020.
These values are deliberately simple and conservative, and they’re under clinical review. When they change, the results on the comparison page change with them.
How the standards were selected
- Doses and irradiance ranges: the WALT proposed veterinary guidelines, using the low end of each dose range so no device is asked for more than WALT’s minimum.
- Wavelength bands: red 620–680 nm and near-infrared 800–900 nm, the bands with the most photobiomodulation research. The edges are fixed so every device is judged the same way.
- Coat and fur factors: based on a 47-dog study of light through black, brown, and white coats (Hochman-Elam et al., 2020), simplified to one fur factor and one coat-color factor.
- Minimum light at the target and depth shares: MedcoVet thresholds and estimates, set to be conservative.
- Time limits: how long a pet owner can realistically hold a device in place at home.
- Pass mark: 75% in every component, so a device can miss a minor disclosure check but not a check that decides whether a dose is possible.
- Safety gate: eye safety for home use, using laser class (IEC 60825-1) and LED risk group (IEC 62471).
- Missing figures: worked out at best and worst case, so a result never depends on guessing a number the company hasn’t given.
- Superpulsed lasers: scored against WALT’s superpulsed chart, which uses lower doses than its continuous-light charts.
- Point values: the checks that decide whether a dose is possible are worth 10 to 20 points; information and claims checks are worth 5 or 10.
Where scientific uncertainty remains
- WALT’s veterinary guidelines are proposed doses, not proven protocols for every condition.
- The share of light reaching each target’s depth is an estimate; real values vary with the animal, the site, and the device.
- One fur factor (25%) stands in for coats that vary a lot, and black coats aren’t scored separately.
- Results for 20 and 80 lb dogs and for cats are extrapolations with draft values.
- Passing shows a device can deliver the dose in principle. It doesn’t show clinical results, and controlled veterinary trials are still limited.
- MedcoVet’s current measurements use a solar power meter, which reads LED light high. Until the devices are re-measured with a thermopile meter, each reading is scored across a range.
MedcoVet’s own measurements
MedcoVet’s readings currently come from a solar power meter. Solar meters read LED light high, so each reading is scored across a range: the reading ÷ 20 (worst case) to ÷ 13 (best case). This is an interim measure until the devices are re-measured with a thermopile power meter. Measured readings currently apply to LumaFlex Essential, LumaPet, and LumaSoothe 2. Other figures come from third-party sources, such as an FDA summary (Yugo Pets) or a manual’s joules table (Illumi-Vet 5000).
For every measured device, we’ll publish the method and the raw results: instrument and calibration, measurement distance and area, operating mode, warm-up time, and repeat readings.
Conflict of interest
MedcoVet publishes The WAIT Test™ and makes the Luma, one of the devices compared. The Luma is scored on the same checks as every other device, at its strongest setting (1.3 W of near-infrared). Every threshold and every device’s result is shown on the comparison page, so you can check the work.
See every device, condition by condition, in The WAIT Test™ Device Scorecard. Switch to the By device view to see one device in every situation.
The Highest Numbers Do Not Win
The WAIT Test™ does not reward the device with the most wavelengths, largest wattage, or highest irradiance. It rewards clear reporting and a treatment setup in which the four factors work together. A well-designed device should produce appropriate wavelengths, provide enough average power for a practical session, deliver a suitable irradiance, and allow that light to reach the target tissue. Its recommended treatment time should make sense based on those measurements.
The goal is to have a treatment that is right for the user and can be measured, not just to have the biggest number on the product page.
What The WAIT Test™ can and can’t tell you
The WAIT Test™ helps consumers and clinicians determine whether:
- A company’s claims correspond to its specifications.
- The reported measurements are relevant to normal use.
- The recommended treatment time can be connected to a calculated dose.
- Important device information is missing.
- Two products can be compared using the same criteria.
- The light has a practical path to the treatment surface.
The WAIT Test™ does not determine whether red light therapy is appropriate for a particular person, pet, diagnosis, or treatment area. It also does not guarantee a clinical result.
Treatment decisions should consider the condition, target tissue, dose, session frequency, safety factors, and guidance from a qualified healthcare or veterinary professional.
❔ Why isn’t FDA approval one of the WAIT criteria?
Because it can’t be. The FDA has no approval or clearance process for veterinary-use red light therapy devices. The FDA approves human medical devices, and even then, approval is device-specific and rarely extends to veterinary applications. For animal devices, the FDA’s role is limited to ensuring products aren’t misbranded or unsafe. It does not require premarket approval or clearance (like 510(k) or PMA), and manufacturers aren’t even required to register or list their animal devices with the FDA. In other words: there is no FDA “approval” process for red light therapy devices intended for pets. If a company claims one, they’re either misinformed or misleading customers. Sometimes, a company presents a real clearance number for an entirely unrelated product next to a pet device it has nothing to do with. This is exactly why none of the four WAIT criteria is a regulatory checkbox. Wavelengths, average power, irradiance, and getting light to the target are physics: measurable directly, by anyone willing to check, with no agency approval required and, in this category, none available either way.
Use The WAIT Test™ Before You Buy
Before choosing an at-home red light therapy device, ask the company four questions:
- What exact wavelengths does the device produce, and why were they selected?
- What is its average optical power during normal use?
- What is the average irradiance at the actual treatment surface?
- How does the light get past fur to the skin, and is the device used flush on the skin for joints and the spine?
Clear answers should include measurements, units, testing conditions, and enough information to connect the device specifications to its recommended use.
If the company cannot answer all four questions, pause before relying on its claims.
🚨 Regulatory red flag
Be cautious of any at-home red light therapy device claiming “FDA approved” or “FDA cleared” for pet use. No premarket approval or clearance process exists for this category; the FDA doesn’t require it and doesn’t offer it. A specific clearance number doesn’t change that unless it was issued for that exact device and that exact veterinary use, which it almost never is.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about The WAIT Test™
Who created The WAIT Test™, and is it independent?
MedcoVet created it, and MedcoVet makes the Luma, one of the devices compared. That’s a conflict of interest, so we publish every threshold, every check, and every device’s result, and we score the Luma by the same rules as every other device. Anyone can rerun the evaluation from the published data.
Why does one device get several results?
Because a wound, a hip, and a spine need different doses, areas, and depths, and a coat changes how much light gets through. One overall score would hide whether a device fits your pet’s condition.
Can a device pass without publishing its specifications?
Not until its key figures are known. If a figure isn’t published, measured, or available from a third party, the checks that need it stay open, and the device needs more information until it’s supplied.
Does passing mean the device will work for my pet?
No. Passing means the device can deliver a useful dose for that condition and coat. Whether red light therapy is right for your pet is a clinical decision for your veterinarian.
Can I evaluate a device that isn’t on the comparison page?
Yes. Follow the seven steps above, starting with the data table. If information is missing, use the table on what to do when information is unavailable.
Can I use or cite The WAIT Test™?
Yes. The framework may be shared for educational purposes when its four components remain unchanged and MedcoVet is credited as its creator. Please cite the version of the method you used.
Continue With The WAIT Test™
- Wavelengths in Red Light Therapy: Is it the right kind of light for the target tissue?
- Average Power in Red Light Therapy: Is there enough light to treat the whole area?
- Irradiance in Red Light Therapy: Is the light concentrated enough to deliver the dose in time?
- Target Tissue in Red Light Therapy: Does the light reach the target tissue?
- Read The WAIT Test™ Device Reviews (coming soon)
- The WAIT Test™ Device Scorecard
- The WAIT Test™ Clinic Training (coming soon)
- The WAIT Test™ + WALT Guidelines = Dosing Guide (coming soon)
A Clearer Standard for At-Home Red Light Therapy
The WAIT Test™ gives one consistent method for assessing at-home PBM devices.
The goal is simple: to make red light therapy easier to judge and harder to mislead people about.
Before you buy, recommend, or use an at-home red light therapy device, WAIT.
Wavelengths. Average Power. Irradiance. Target Tissue.
The WAIT Test™ was developed by MedcoVet.
The framework may be shared for educational purposes when its four components remain unchanged, and MedcoVet is credited as its creator.
The WAIT Test™ is an instructional framework for comparing device specifications. It does not determine whether PBM is appropriate for a specific person, pet, diagnosis, or treatment area. Make treatment decisions with a qualified veterinary or healthcare professional.
For every WAIT guide and tool in one place, start at The WAIT Test™ hub.
Ready to take the next step?
Book a free consultation with a licensed MedcoVet clinician to discuss your pet’s condition and get a custom at-home plan.
Ella
Sources
Evidence Citations
- Bunch, J. (2023). Photobiomodulation: An Update and Review of Current Literature. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 53(4), 783-799. PubMed
- de Freitas, L. F., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Proposed Mechanisms of Photobiomodulation or Low-Level Light Therapy. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 22(3), 7000417. PubMed
- de Oliveira, A. R., et al. (2017). Pre-Exercise Infrared Photobiomodulation Therapy (810 nm) in Skeletal Muscle Performance and Postexercise Recovery in Humans: What Is the Optimal Power Output? Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. PubMed
- Ferraresi, C., Huang, Y. Y., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Photobiomodulation in human muscle tissue: an advantage in sports performance? Journal of Biophotonics, 9(11-12), 1273-1299. PubMed
- Fonseca, A. S., et al. (2025). Light-emitting diode photobiomodulation on rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: In vitro and in vivo studies. Photochemistry and Photobiology. Wiley
- Gupta, A., Dai, T., & Hamblin, M. R. (2014). Effect of red and near-infrared wavelengths on low-level laser therapy-induced healing of partial-thickness dermal abrasion in mice. Lasers in Medical Science, 29(1), 257-265. PubMed
- Hamblin, M. R. (2018). Mechanisms and Mitochondrial Redox Signaling in Photobiomodulation. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 94(2), 199-212. PubMed
- Jacques, S. L. (2013). Optical properties of biological tissues: a review. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 58(11), R37-61. PubMed
- Leal-Junior, E. C. P., et al. (2009). Effect of cluster multi-diode light-emitting diode therapy (LEDT) on exercise-induced skeletal muscle fatigue and skeletal muscle recovery in humans. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 41(8), 572-577. PubMed
- Rohringer, S., Holnthoner, W., Chaudary, S., et al. (2017). The impact of wavelengths of LED light therapy on endothelial cells. Scientific Reports, 7, 10700. Nature
- Vanin, A. A., et al. (2016). Pre-Exercise Infrared Low-Level Laser Therapy (810 nm) in Skeletal Muscle Performance and Postexercise Recovery in Humans, What Is the Optimal Dose? A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 34(10), 473-482. PubMed
- Wang, Y., Huang, Y. Y., Wang, Y., Lyu, P., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Photobiomodulation of human adipose-derived stem cells using 810 nm and 980 nm lasers operates via different mechanisms of action. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – General Subjects. PubMed
- Wang, Y., Huang, Y. Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2017). Red 660 nm or near-infrared 810 nm photobiomodulation stimulates proliferation in human adipose-derived stem cells. Scientific Reports, 7, 7781. PubMed
- Ng, J. N. C., et al. (2020). Efficacy of home-use light-emitting diode device at 637 and 854-nm for facial rejuvenation: A split-face pilot study. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. PubMed
- Russell, B. A., Kellett, N., & Reilly, L. R. (2005). A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 7, 196-200. Taylor & Francis
- Cronshaw, M., Parker, S., Grootveld, M., & Lynch, E. (2023). Photothermal Effects of High-Energy Photobiomodulation Therapies: An In Vitro Investigation. Biomedicines, 11(6), 1634. MDPI
- de Freitas, L. F., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Proposed Mechanisms of Photobiomodulation or Low-Level Light Therapy. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 22(3), Article 7000417. PubMed
- Girasol, C. E., Braz, G. A., Bachmann, L., Celli, J., & Guirro, R. R. J. (2022). Laser Light Sources for Photobiomodulation: The Role of Power and Beam Characterization in Treatment Accuracy and Reliability. PLOS ONE, 17(3), e0266193. PLOS ONE
- Hadis, M. A., Zainal, S. A., Holder, M. J., et al. (2016). Accurate Radiometry for Low-Level Light Therapy. Lasers in Medical Science, 31(4), 789-809. Springer
- Hashmi, J. T., Huang, Y. Y., Sharma, S. K., et al. (2010). Effect of Pulsing in Low-Level Light Therapy. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 42(6), 450-466. PubMed
- Huang, Y. Y., Sharma, S. K., Carroll, J., & Hamblin, M. R. (2011). Biphasic Dose Response in Low-Level Light Therapy: An Update. Dose-Response, 9(4), 602- 618. PMC
- Jenkins, P. A., & Carroll, J. D. (2011). How to Report Low-Level Laser Therapy and Photomedicine Dose and Beam Parameters in Clinical and Laboratory Studies. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 29(12), 785-787.
- Joensen, J., Øvsthus, K., Reed, R. K., Hummelsund, S., Iversen, V. V., Lopes-Martins, R. A. B., & Bjordal, J. M. (2012). Skin Penetration Time-Profiles for Continuous 810 nm and Superpulsed 904 nm Lasers in a Rat Model. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 30(7). SAGE
- Lanzafame, R. J., Stadler, I., Kurtz, A. F., et al. (2007). Reciprocity of Exposure Time and Irradiance on Energy Density During Photoradiation on Wound Healing in a Murine Pressure Ulcer Model. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 39(6), 534-542. PubMed
- Sharma, S. K., Kharkwal, G. B., Sajo, M., et al. (2011). Dose-Response Effects of 810 nm Laser Light on Mouse Primary Cortical Neurons. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 43(8), 851-859. PubMed
- Chung, H., Dai, T., Sharma, S. K., Huang, Y. Y., Carroll, J. D., & Hamblin, M. R. (2012). The Nuts and Bolts of Low-Level Laser (Light) Therapy. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 40(2), 516-533. Springer
- de Freitas, L. F., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Proposed Mechanisms of Photobiomodulation or Low-Level Light Therapy. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 22(3), Article 7000417. PubMed
- FDA. (2023). Photobiomodulation Devices: Premarket Notification Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Docket FDA-2022-D-3116. FDA
- Girasol, C. E., Braz, G. A., Bachmann, L., Celli, J., & Guirro, R. R. J. (2022). Laser Light Sources for Photobiomodulation: The Role of Power and Beam Characterization in Treatment Accuracy and Reliability. PLOS ONE, 17(3), e0266193. PLOS ONE
- Hadis, M. A., Zainal, S. A., Holder, M. J., et al. (2016). Accurate Radiometry for Low-Level Light Therapy. Lasers in Medical Science, 31(4), 789-809. Springer
- Hadis, M. A., Cooper, P. R., Milward, M. R., Gorecki, P. C., Tarte, E., Churm, J., & Palin, W. M. (2017). Development and application of LED arrays for use in phototherapy research. Journal of Biophotonics, 10(12), 1667-1680. Wiley
- Huang, Y. Y., Sharma, S. K., Carroll, J., & Hamblin, M. R. (2011). Biphasic Dose Response in Low-Level Light Therapy: An Update. Dose-Response, 9(4), 602- 618. PMC
- Jenkins, P. A., & Carroll, J. D. (2011). How to Report Low-Level Laser Therapy and Photomedicine Dose and Beam Parameters in Clinical and Laboratory Studies. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 29(12), 785-787. Liebert
- Lanzafame, R. J., Stadler, I., Kurtz, A. F., et al. (2007). Reciprocity of Exposure Time and Irradiance on Energy Density During Photoradiation on Wound Healing in a Murine Pressure Ulcer Model. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 39(6), 534-542. PubMed
- Sharma, S. K., Kharkwal, G. B., Sajo, M., et al. (2011). Dose-Response Effects of 810 nm Laser Light on Mouse Primary Cortical Neurons. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 43(8), 851-859. PubMed
- Duesterdieck-Zellmer, K. F., Larson, M. K., Plant, T. K., Sundholm-Tepper, A., & Payton, M. E. (2016). Ex vivo penetration of low-level laser light through equine skin and flexor tendons. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 77(9), 991-999. AVMA Journals
- Hochman-Elam, L. N., Heidel, R. E., & Shmalberg, J. W. (2020). Effects of laser power, wavelength, coat length, and coat color on tissue penetration using photobiomodulation in healthy dogs. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 84(2), 131-137. PubMed
- World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy (WALT). Proposed veterinary photobiomodulation dosing guidelines (canine and feline charts).
- Jenkins, P. A., & Carroll, J. D. (2011). How to Report Low-Level Laser Therapy and Photomedicine Dose and Beam Parameters in Clinical and Laboratory Studies. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 29(12), 785-787. SAGE
- Saleem, A., Canal, C., Davis, L. A. J., Green, R. J., & Hutchins, D. A. (2013). Near Infrared Transmission through Various Clothing Fabrics. Journal of Textile Science & Engineering, 3(2), 129. Hilaris Publisher
- Lilge, L., Tierney, K., & Nussbaum, E. (2000). Low-level laser therapy for wound healing: feasibility of wound dressing transillumination. Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine & Surgery, 18(5), 235. SAGE
- Moura, C. S., Menegon, D. B., Marques, S., Cecchin, M., Lykawka, R., & Bacelar, A. (2025). Comparison of the light transmission in protecting films used in laser photodynamic therapy. Wounds International, 16(3), 42-46. Wounds International
© 2026 MedcoVet. All rights reserved. THE WAIT TEST is a trademark of MedcoVet.
