ArticleArchives of dermatological research2024
Outstanding user reported satisfaction for light emitting diodes under-eye rejuvenation.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The under-eye region is an area of significant cosmetic concern. Photobiomodulation (PBM) has emerged as an effective, safe, inexpensive, and convenient treatment for skin rejuvenation. Herein, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a LED under-eye device for under-eye rejuvenation, as measured by objective and patient reported outcomes. Eleven participants self-administered treatment using a commercially available LED device emitting red (633 nm) and near infrared (830 nm) light for six weeks. Standardized photographs and questionnaires were administered at baseline and six weeks. Photographic digital analysis indicated an improvement in under-eye wrinkles at six weeks compared to baseline, with a reduction in wrinkle score from 20.05 to 19.72. However, this finding was not statistically significant. Participants self-reported consistent improvements in under-eye wrinkles, texture, dark circles, bags, pigmentation, and erythema. All participants reported a high degree of comfortability, ease of use, and satisfaction with the eye device. The participants noted no moderate or severe adverse events and few reports of transient expected outcomes such as mild erythema. The participants' self-reported improvements and high user satisfaction, and the device's favorable safety profile, highlights the benefits of at-home LED devices for under-eye rejuvenation. Future randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes could further establish the safety and efficacy of at-home LED under-eye treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39133416What 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.