Effects of repeated low-level red light therapy on myopia progression in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Fan H, Yu J, Jiang A, Wei Q, Zhang X, Xie A, Duan J
Frontiers in medicine · 4 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Systematic review (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- University or hospital
- Chengdu University
Based on 2 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2025-08-13 · Front Med (Lausanne) · vol. 12 · p. 1640403
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media
- Cited
- 5 citations · more than 79% of similar papers · 1.3× the field average
- References
- 86 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies
- Keywords
- Meta-analysis, Dioptre, Medicine, Cochrane Library, Inclusion and exclusion criteria, Randomized controlled trial, Ophthalmology, Publication bias, Subgroup analysis, Internal medicine, Web of science, Visual acuity, Pathology
7 authors
From CN
- Haobo FanChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Yu JiaChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Aiming JiangChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Qiumei WeiChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Xuemin ZhangChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Airui XieChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy in intervening in the progression of myopia in children.
Methods
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases for relevant studies published from the inception of the databases to 30 April 2025. Subsequently, studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and basic information and outcome data of the included studies were recorded. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool and the NOS, respectively. Finally, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, and meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were conducted using STATA 17.
Results
A total of 20 studies were included in this study, involving 2,638 Chinese children, aged from 3 to 16 years, with a baseline spherical equivalent refraction (SER) ranging between +0.75 and -10.00 diopters. A meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, the RLRL group had a slower axial elongation, a lower progression of SER, and a greater increase in subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT). The changes in axial length (AL) at the 6th, 12th, and 24th months of follow-up in the RLRL group relative to the control group were -0.22 mm (95% CI: -0.25, -0.18; p CI: -0.36, -0.24; p CI: -0.71, -0.52; p CI: 0.31, 0.50; p CI: 0.47, 0.76; p CI: 0.62, 2.03; p = 0.0002). Additionally, the changes in SFCT at the 6th and 12th months of follow-up were 31.21 μm (95% CI: 22.03, 40.38; p CI: 19.53, 39.92; p < 0.00001), respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis revealed that the baseline SER and treatment frequency primarily contributed to the heterogeneity observed in this study.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis confirmed that RLRL therapy can effectively delay the progression of myopia in children during a 6-24 months follow-up, and the efficacy appears to be directly related to the degree of the baseline myopia and the LRLR treatment frequency. However, a causal relationship has been suggested between retinal damage and LRLR treatments, which requires further investigations.
Systematic review registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251018947.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
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.