Repeated low-level red-light therapy for improving asthenopic symptoms and accommodation in presbyopia
Song F, Zhao Z, Zhang J, Li J, Wu Y, Liu Y, Li P, Wang Y, Lai M, He M, Chen Y
Annals of medicine · 0 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
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University
- Authors
- At least one author declares a financial tie to industry
- Grants
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University (P0046113)
Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2026-04-28 · Ann Med · vol. 58 · issue 1 · p. 2663105
- Publisher
- Informa
- Cited
- 0 citations · more than 35% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 41 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction · Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
- Keywords
- Presbyopia, Blinding, Randomization, Accommodation, Randomized controlled trial, Adverse effect, Near vision, Refractive error
- MeSH
- humans, asthenopia, presbyopia, treatment outcome, double-blind method, visual acuity, accommodation, ocular, adult, middle aged, female, male, surveys and questionnaires, low-level light therapy, red light
11 authors
From HK, CN, AU
- Fan SongHong Kong Polytechnic University
- Ziwei ZhaoHong Kong Polytechnic University
- J Q ZhangSun Yat-sen University
- Jijing LiVision Eye Institute
- Yue WuHong Kong Polytechnic University
- Ying LiuHong Kong Polytechnic University
Abstract
Background
To assess the short-term effectiveness of repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy in relieving asthenopia and enhancing accommodation in presbyopia.
Methods
This randomized, parallel-group, double-masked clinical trial enrolled adults with presbyopia and self-reported asthenopia. Participants were allocated using computer-generated randomization and randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to RLRL or sham groups. Blinding included participants, examiners, assessors, and statisticians. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q) score at day 31. Secondary outcomes were the change in accommodative amplitude (AA), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) score, habitual near visual acuity, near-addition power, accommodative facility, positive and negative relative accommodation, binocular cross-cylinder response, and accommodative convergence-to-accommodation ratio. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models.
Results
Sixty-four of 66 randomized participants (aged 41-62 years) completed the 1-month trial. At day 31, RLRL showed greater improvement than sham in CVS-Q score (adjusted mean difference, -1.75 points; 95% CI, -3.10 to -0.39), binocular AA (1.09 D; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.82), and NAVQ score (-8.07 points; 95% CI, -14.17 to -1.97). The effect on AA was most pronounced in a subgroup of eyes with baseline amplitude >2.0 D (adjusted mean difference 1.33 D; 95% CI 0.32-2.34). Other measures did not differ between groups at each visit. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. Adherence was similar between groups (mean compliance: 98.2% vs 97.5%).
Conclusions
Short-term treatment with RLRL significantly reduced asthenopic symptoms and improved accommodative amplitude in individuals with presbyopia.Trial registration: NCT06745661 (registered December 8, 2024).
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.