A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the repeated low-level red light therapy in slowing the progression of myopia in children and adolescents
Deng B, Zhou M, Kong X, Luo L, Lv H
Indian journal of ophthalmology · 14 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
Según la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2023-12-15 · Indian J Ophthalmol · vol. 72 · número Suppl 2 · págs. S203–S210
- Editorial
- Medknow
- Citado
- 14 citas · más que el 68% de estudios similares · 0.7× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 39 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (publicación gratuita) · CC-BY-NC-SA
- Áreas de investigación
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
- Palabras clave
- Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trial, Cochrane Library, Medicine, Confidence interval, Inclusion and exclusion criteria, Significant difference, Mean difference, Cochrane collaboration, Web of science, MEDLINE, Internal medicine, Ophthalmology, Pathology, Alternative medicine
- MeSH
- humans, myopia, refraction, ocular, adolescent, child, randomized controlled trials as topic, red light
5 autores
- Bo Deng🇨🇳Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
- Mo Zhou🇨🇳Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
- Xiangmei Kong🇨🇳Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
- Linbi Luo🇨🇳Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
- Hongbin Lv🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy in controlling myopia progression in children through a meta-analysis.
Methods
We searched several databases including PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WANFANG, CBM, and VIP with languages restricted to both Chinese and English. The search was conducted from the establishment of the databases to March 23, 2023. We collected randomized controlled trials and controlled experiments to evaluate changes in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent (SE) before and after RLRL intervention. Two researchers performed literature screening and data extraction, and RevMan software (Ver 5.3) and StataMP 17.0 were used for meta-analysis.
Results
A total of 141 articles were retrieved, and finally, six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 820 eyes (RLRL group: 411 eyes, control group: 409 eyes). The meta-analysis results showed that the RLRL group was significantly better than the control group in controlling AL, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (mean difference [MD] = -0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] [ - 0.28, -0.16]; P < 0.001). The RLRL group was also better than the control group in terms of SE, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (MD = 0.46, 95% CI [0.32, 0.6]; P < 0.001). Five studies reported adverse reactions in the RLRL group, and two cases stopped treatment due to the feeling of too bright light, while the others had no significant side effects in the short term.
Conclusion
RLRL therapy is a safe and effective method for controlling myopia, which can inhibit the growth of AL and slow down the progression of myopia. However, further research and validation are needed to determine its treatment efficacy and course.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-SA).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.