Meta-analysis2026Open access

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 citation

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
2026-02-12 · BMC Ophthalmol · vol. 26 · issue 1
Publisher
BioMed Central
Cited
1 citation · more than 82% of similar papers · 2.4× the field average
References
41 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
Research areas
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Keywords
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 authors

From CN

  • Dayue LiuXuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital
  • Tao YuXuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital
  • Guangcheng MaXuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital
  • Yi-Xiang Wang · correspondingXuzhou Medical College; Xuzhou No.1 People's Hospital; Yangzhou University

Abstract

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).

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

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.