Trial reportJournal of neurology2020
Light therapy for multiple sclerosis-associated fatigue: a randomized, controlled phase II trial.
Trial report in Journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploratory crossover field study indicates efficacy and feasibility of light therapy glasses to mitigate fatigue in multiple sclerosis.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on fatigue, walking performance, depression, and quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.Brazilian journal of physical therapyTrial
- Effects of Phototherapy on Sleep, Fatigue and Quality of Life in Dermatology Patients: A Pilot Study.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2026Article
- Bright light therapy as a non-pharmacological treatment option for multiple sclerosis-related fatigue: A randomized sham-controlled trial.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBright white light therapy (LT) can improve fatigue in several disease states but has not been studied in multiple sclerosis (MS).
objectiveTo determine whether controlled home-based LT is feasible, tolerable, and well-adhered to in MS-associated fatigue.
methodsA randomized, controlled trial of twice-daily 1-h bright white LT (BWLT) (10,000 lx, active arm) versus dim red LT (DRLT) (< 300 lx, control arm) was performed. Adults with MS-associated fatigue were enrolled for 10 weeks: 2-week baseline, 4-week intervention, 4-week washout.
results41 participants were enrolled; 35 were randomized (average age 42 years, 80% female; BWLT n = 20; DRLT n = 15). 31 were in the intention to treat analysis. The average duration of LT sessions was similar between groups (BWLT 60.9 min, DRLT 61.5 min, p = 0.70). The most commonly reported adverse event was headache. There were no events that led to discontinuation. Baseline fatigue was severe in both arms (each 53/63 points on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), p = 0.92). FSS was lower following BWLT (FSS 45.8 post-LT, p = 0.04; 44.9 post-washout, p = 0.02 intra-group compared to baseline FSS) and DRLT (FSS 46.7 post-LT, p = 0.03; 43.9 post-washout, p = 0.002 intragroup compared to baseline FSS). There was no difference between BWLT and DRLT groups in the magnitude of reduction of FSS scores (p = 0.81 after LT; p = 0.77 after washout for between group comparisons). Similarly, MS quality of life metrics improved in both arms but were not significantly different between groups after LT (p = 0.22) or washout.
conclusionsLT is safe, feasible, and well-tolerated in people with MS-associated fatigue. Improvement in both light spectra likely indicates a strong placebo effect for the DRLT group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.