Meta-analysis2024Open access

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 citations

How it was studied

Design
Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding

Based on full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2023-12-15 · Indian J Ophthalmol · vol. 72 · issue Suppl 2 · pp. S203–S210
Publisher
Medknow
Cited
14 citations · more than 68% of similar papers · 0.7× the field average
References
39 works
Access
Open access (free to publish) · CC-BY-NC-SA
Research areas
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Keywords
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 authors

From CN

  • Bo DengAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
  • Mo ZhouAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
  • Xiangmei KongAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
  • Linbi LuoAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University
  • Hongbin Lv · correspondingAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University

Abstract

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.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-SA).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.