Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38723579›Full record

SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024

Low-level red-light therapy for myopia control in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dillan Cunha Amaral, Sávio Batista, Edson Dos Santos-Neto, José Eduardo Ferreira Manso, Márcio Penha Morterá Rodrigues, Mário Luiz Ribeiro Monteiro, Milton Ruiz Alves, Ricardo Noguera Louzada

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Current Evidence on Options and Efficacy of Combination Therapy for Myopia Control-A Narrative Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dillan Cunha AmaralFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Sávio BatistaFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Edson Dos Santos-NetoDivision of Ophthalmology and the Laboratory for Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM-33), Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
José Eduardo Ferreira MansoFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Márcio Penha Morterá RodriguesFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Mário Luiz Ribeiro MonteiroDivision of Ophthalmology and the Laboratory for Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM-33), Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Milton Ruiz AlvesDivision of Ophthalmology and the Laboratory for Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM-33), Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Ricardo Noguera LouzadaFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil; Division of Ophthalmology and the Laboratory for Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM-33), Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: louzada@hucff.ufrj.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLow-Level Red-Light (LLRL) Therapy is a safe and natural way to promote healing and reduce inflammation in the body. When it comes to treating myopia in children, LLRL therapy is recent, and its efficacy and safety still are not clear.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature for LLRL was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines on November 5, 2022. Databases, including PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were queried. A meta-analysis of random effects was conducted. Inclusion criteria included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) or observational studies where LLRL therapy was used in children (3‒15 years old) with myopia. Exclusion criteria were studies with other ocular abnormalities. Efficacy was evaluated through the mean change in Axial Length (AL) and cycloplegic Spherical Equivalent Error (SER), while safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse effects.

resultsA total of 5 final studies were included (4 RCTs, and 1 observational), in which 685 total patients were analyzed. The mean age was 9.7 ± 0.66 years, with 48,2% female patients. The number of eyes in the LRLL arm is 714 and, in the control, arm is 656. LLRL showed better results in SER and AL mean change (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.83; p < 0.00001, and MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.13; p = 0.001, respectively), in comparison to the control group. There was no significant difference in adverse effects between groups (MD = 5.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 50.14; p = 0.11).

conclusionLLRL therapy is a non-invasive, effective, and safe short-term treatment option; however, long-term evaluation, particularly in comparison to other therapies, requires additional investigation.

Indexed as

Low-Level Light TherapyMyopiaAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAdverse effectsAxial lengthChildrenCycloplegic spherical equivalent errorLow-level red-light therapyMyopia

Identifiers

PMID38723579
PMCPMC11101697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.