Comparison of effects between daily repeated low-level red light therapy and 0.01% low-dose atropine for myopia prevention: A propensity score matching study
Ma X, Zhao Y, Zhou Y, Sun H, Liu S, Yin W
Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 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
- Controlled clinical trial (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2026-08-20 · Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther · vol. 61 · p. 105624
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 0 citations · more than 77% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 24 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders
- Keywords
- Propensity score matching, Incidence (geometry), Mean difference, Prospective cohort study, Significant difference, Atropine, Red light
6 authors
From CN
- Xiaoqian Ma
- Yang ZhaoChina National Pharmaceutical Group Corporation (China)
- Yuanpei Zhou
- Hongyan Sun
- 刘苏冰 · corresponding
- Weijing Yin · corresponding
Abstract
Objective
To compare the preventive effect of daily repeated low-level red light (RLRL) and 0.01% low-dose atropine eye drops (LDA) on myopia.
Methods
This was a 12-month prospective comparative study. 216 Children aged 7-12 years using either RLRL or LDA for myopia prevention were enrolled between July 10, 2024 to August 15, 2024. 192 completed the 12-month follow-up, last case went for clinical visit on August 28, 2025. The primary outcome was the 12-month myopia incidence. Secondary outcomes included changes in the spherical equivalent error (SER) and changes in the axial length (AL).
Results
The 12-month myopia incidence was 30.7% (36/117) and 13.3% (10/75) for the LDA and RLRL groups, respectively. The former was significantly higher than the latter (difference, 17.4%, 95% CI: 5.2% to 28.1%; p = 0.028). 69 pairs of children were matched from each group using propensity matching score method, where age, gender, baseline SER, and baseline AL were balanced between groups. The 12-month myopia incidence was 29.0% (20/69) and 11.6% (8/69) for the LDA and RLRL groups, respectively. The LDA group was still significantly higher than the RLRL group (difference, 17.4%, 95% CI: 3.9% to 30.3%; p = 0.038). The 12-month changes in the SER were 0.08 D and -0.49 D for the RLRL group and the LDA group, respectively, the mean difference was -0.57 (95% CI:-0.73 to -0.41) D, p < 0.001. The average changes in AL were 0.02 mm and 0.29 mm for the RLRL group and LDA group, respectively, the mean difference was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.11 to 0.43) mm, p < 0.001. 19.7% (23/117) Children in the LDA group reported photophobia, no adverse event was observed in the RLRL group.
Conclusion and relevance
In this 12-month study, daily RLRL demonstrated superior myopia prevention compared to 0.01% LDA. Myopia incidence was significantly lower with RLRL, with a 60% reduced risk. Propensity-matched analysis confirmed RLRL's efficacy, which better stabilized refractive status and axial elongation. No adverse events occurred with RLRL, while 19.7% of LDA users reported photophobia. RLRL emerges as a safer, more effective preventive intervention for childhood myopia.
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?
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.