Study2026Open access

Retinal Response to Low-Level Red-Light Therapy in Myopic and Non-Myopic Eyes Assessed Using Global Flash Multifocal Electroretinogram

Qasim M, Fernandes P, Jorge J

Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 0 citations

How it was studied

Design
Controlled clinical trial (classified by our AI screen)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding

Based on full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2026-06-27 · Vision (Basel) · vol. 10 · issue 3 · p. 37
Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Cited
0 citations · more than 60% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
References
33 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies · Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Keywords
Repeated measures design, Bonferroni correction, Retinal, Post-hoc analysis, Analysis of variance, Flash (photography), Electroretinography

3 authors

From PT

  • Muhammad Qasim · correspondingCentro de Física das Universidades do Minho e do Porto; University of Minho
  • Paulo R.B. Fernandes · correspondingCentro de Física das Universidades do Minho e do Porto; University of Minho
  • Jorge JorgeCentro de Física das Universidades do Minho e do Porto; University of Minho

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to assess retinal responses in myopic and non-myopic participants after exposure to repeated low-level red-light therapy (RLRT) of 3 min and 1 min duration to see if response differs with exposure time and refractive status using global flash multifocal electroretinogram (gf-mfERG). Methods: This was a prospective exploratory pilot study with a convenient sample of 20 participants of mean age of 25.5 years (18 to 39 years) who underwent 3 min therapy, followed by, 1 week after, 1 min therapy in each participant between February to May 2025. However, four participants who did not appear in 1 min therapy for measurements were excluded from the between-group comparison analysis. We measured retinal responses using gf-mfERG ring-wise implicit time (DCT, ICT) and amplitude (DCA, ICA), baseline, post-first and post-second RLRT. Data analysis included descriptives, repeated measures ANOVA, post hoc test, Bonferroni adjusted correction, and correlation with axial length (AL) and choroidal thickness (CT) in each group. The study was conducted at CEORLab, University of Minho, Portugal, and adhered to Ethical Committee approval and the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Results: In 3 min RLRT exposure, no significant within-subject changes were observed across direct (DC) and induced (IC) gf-mfERG components across all rings (p > 0.05). Statistically significant between-group differences in DC implicit time were noted in Ring 2 (p = 0.029) and Ring 3 (p = 0.012). IC amplitude showed significant within-subject changes in myopes (Ring 1: p = 0.030; Ring 4: p = 0.035) and non-myopes (Ring 1: p = 0.042; Ring 3: p = 0.001; Ring 4: p p = 0.034), with no significant between-group differences (p > 0.05). In contrast, 1 min RLRT showed no significant changes in DC, IC time or amplitudes ICA, DCA (all p > 0.05). Correlation analysis after 3 min RLRT showed that in myopes, DCT positively correlated with AL in Ring 3 (r = 0.591, p = 0.006) and Ring 4 (r = 0.615, p = 0.004), ICT positively correlated with CT in Ring 2 (r = 0.601, p = 0.005) and Ring 3 (r = 0.573, p = 0.008), and ICA negatively correlated with AL in Rings 3-5 (all p p = 0.004). Similar but weaker patterns were observed following 1 min RLRT. Conclusions: 3-min RLRT induces localized inner retinal functional changes without significantly altering outer retinal responses, while 1-min exposure shows no measurable effect. Retinal ERG responses are primarily influenced by axial length, particularly in myopic eyes, highlighting a structure-function relationship rather than a robust short-term therapeutic effect of RLRT.

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?

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.