Efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia management in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Liu D, Yu T, Ma G, Wang J
BMC ophthalmology · 1 cita
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
- 2026-02-12 · BMC Ophthalmol · vol. 26 · número 1
- Editorial
- BioMed Central
- Citado
- 1 cita · más que el 82% de estudios similares · 2.4× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 41 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Áreas de investigación
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies
- Palabras clave
- Prospective cohort study, MEDLINE, Clinical trial, Systematic review, Alternative medicine, Register (sociolinguistics)
- MeSH
- humans, myopia, disease progression, refraction, ocular, treatment outcome, eyeglasses, adolescent, child, axial length, eye, low-level light therapy, red light
4 autores
- Dayue Liu🇨🇳Xuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital
- Tao Yu🇨🇳Xuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital
- Guangcheng Ma🇨🇳Xuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital
- Yi-Xiang Wang🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaXuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital; Yangzhou University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
To systematically evaluate the efficacy of repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy, compared to single-vision spectacles (SVS), for controlling myopia progression in children and adolescents.
Methods
A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, was conducted up to Sept 30, 2025 according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The change of axial length (AL), spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) were main outcomes. Pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was quantified using I2.
Results
Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 1,942 participants were included. The mean difference in AL change favored RLRL at 1 month (MD: -0.07 mm, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.06, P < 0.00001), 3 months (MD: -0.15 mm, 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.11, P < 0.00001), 6 months (MD: -0.22 mm, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.17, P < 0.00001), and 12 months (MD: -0.33 mm, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.27, P < 0.00001). Similarly, RLRL significantly slowed SER progression at 3 months (MD: 0.17 D, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.21, P < 0.00001), 6 months (MD: 0.38 D, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.49, P < 0.00001), and 12 months (MD: 0.67 D, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.00001). Furthermore, RLRL induced a significant increase in SFCT at all time points (16.72 μm at 1 month; 19.46 μm at 3 months; 28.21 μm at 6 months; 30.86 μm at 12 months; all P < 0.00001). Heterogeneity was substantial for AL and SER outcomes but the treatment effect was consistently favorable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that RLRL therapy maybe an effective intervention for slowing myopia progression in children and adolescents in the short to medium term. Based on current evidence, it appears to be a promising and generally well-tolerated treatment option. However, long-term safety, sustained efficacy, and optimal treatment protocols require further confirmation through extended follow-up studies.
Trial registration
The trial was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration ID: CRD420251139693).
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).
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.