Application of red light therapy for moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wu Y, Deng Y, Huang P
Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 9 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2021-08-07 · J Cosmet Dermatol · vol. 20 · issue 11 · pp. 3498–3508
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Cited
- 12 citations · more than 47% of similar papers · 0.5× the field average
- References
- 31 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Acne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects · Dermatologic Treatments and Research · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
- Keywords
- Acne, Medicine, Meta-analysis, Significant difference, Randomized controlled trial, Dermatology, Photodynamic therapy, Adverse effect, Cochrane Library, Intense pulsed light, Mean difference, Internal medicine, Confidence interval
- MeSH
- humans, acne vulgaris, blister, treatment outcome, photochemotherapy, phototherapy, randomized controlled trials as topic
3 authors
From CN
- Yifan WuNanchang University; Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University
- Yu DengNanchang University; Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University
- Peng Huang · correspondingNanchang University
Abstract
Background
Photodynamic therapy had made great progress in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, there is no meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of red light therapy for acne vulgaris.
Objective
To assess the efficiency and safety of red light therapy for acne vulgaris.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were retrieved to identify related studies. The outcomes were expressed as improvement in the average percentages of inflammatory acne lesions (MPRI) and non-inflammatory acne lesions (NMPRI), as well as the improvement of acne lesions respectively after treatment.
Results
13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 422 participants were included. There was no significant difference in the average number of non-inflammatory lesions (weighted mean difference (WMD = -0.527; 95% CI,-3.055~2.001; p = 0.683). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in the average number of inflammatory lesions (WMD =0.701; 95% CI, -0.809~2.212; p =0.363). In the subgroup analysis of the outcome changes in comedones, pustules, papules, and total lesions, it was found that red light therapy elicited no significant superiority compared with other conventional treatment methods (WMD = -1.125; 95% CI, -3.122~0.873; p = 0.270). Adverse events of the red light group were generally mild or even completely non-existent.
Conclusion
There was no statistically significant difference between red light therapy and traditional therapies in terms of efficacy. However, due to the heterogeneity of the researches and the lack of large sample size, the result of this study needs to be interpreted with caution.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.