Two-year outcomes of repeated red light therapy in premyopic children: sustained efficacy and rebound effects
Liu G, Li N, Rong H, Hu J, Pei E, Pazo EE, Du B, Wei R
The British journal of ophthalmology · 1 cita
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Gobierno
- Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project
- Subvenciones
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (82070929.)
Según 2 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2025-10-09 · Br J Ophthalmol · vol. 110 · número 5 · págs. 536–542
- Editorial
- BMJ
- Citado
- 5 citas · más que el 93% de estudios similares · 3.1× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 35 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders
- Palabras clave
- Red light, Light therapy, Randomized controlled trial, Intervention (counseling), Clinical trial, Blue light
- MeSH
- choroid, humans, myopia, disease progression, tomography, optical coherence, refraction, ocular, treatment outcome, phototherapy, follow-up studies, visual acuity, time factors, child, female, male, axial length, eye
8 autores
- Guihua Liu🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Na Li🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Hua Rong🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Jiamei Hu🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Enpei Pei🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Emmanuel Eric Pazo🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Bei Du🇨🇳Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Ruihua Wei🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaTianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
To evaluate the long-term prevention effectiveness and rebound effect of repeated red light therapy (RRLT) in children with premyopia over 2 years.
Methods
A total of 108 premyopic children (cycloplegia spherical equivalent refraction (SER): -0.50 to +0.75 D) were enrolled and followed for 24 months. Participants were randomly assigned to the RRLT or control groups. The RRLT was administered two times per day for 3 min per session, with at least 4-hour interval. At the beginning of the second year, participants receiving RRLT were further randomised into continued treatment and washout subgroups. Axial length (AL), SER and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SChT) were measured.
Results
Over 2 years, the RRLT group showed significantly smaller AL elongation (0.26 mm; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.35 mm) and SER progression (-0.21 D; 95% CI -0.35 to -0.08 D) compared with the controls (AL: 0.43 mm; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.49 mm; SER: -0.66 D; 95% CI -0.79 to -0.52 D). The RRLT group also demonstrated significantly less SChT thinning (-2.44 µm; 95% CI -16.11 to 11.23 µm) than the controls (-44.12 µm; 95% CI -53.05 to -35.19 µm). After RRLT cessation in the second year, the washout subgroup exhibited significantly faster AL elongation and more SChT thinning than the controls, with no significant difference in SER progression.
Conclusions
The 2-year RRLT intervention effectively retarded AL elongation and SER progression in premyopic children by 0.17 mm and -0.45 D, respectively. Notably, a significant rebound effect was observed in AL growth following 1-year RRLT cessation.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
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.