ReviewInternational journal of retina and vitreous2024
Photobiomodulation efficacy in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Review in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Near-Infrared and Red-Light Photobiomodulation for Ocular Aging and Diseases: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Comment on "effects of vascular photo-biomodulation on inflammatory and immunological biomarkers in people living with HIV" by Zuber et al.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Functional and Structural Outcomes of Photobiomodulation Therapy in Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Photobiomodulation for skeletal muscle regeneration: mechanisms, dosimetry, and translational challenges.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Photobiomodulation in animal models of ophthalmic disease: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of morphological, visual function, and inflammatory outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Environmental enrichment as a mitochondria-targeting systems strategy across neurodegenerative diseases and retinal dystrophies.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy for ophthalmic diseases: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of disease-specific and shared physiological outcomes.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Treatment of Geographic Atrophy: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- Is Multiwavelength Photobiomodulation Effective and Safe for Age-Related Macular Degeneration? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Prolonged Photobiomodulation with Deep Red Light Mitigates Incipient Retinal Deterioration in a Mouse Model of Type 2 Diabetes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision loss. Photobiomodulation (PBM) offers a controversial approach for managing dry AMD, aiming to halt or reverse progression through mitochondrial activity modulation. However, the efficacy and clinical relevance of PBM as a potential approach for managing dry AMD remain debated.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PBM versus a sham in patients with dry AMD. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations to assess statistical and clinical significance applying a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsWe included three RCTs comprising 247 eyes. The pooled analysis showed that PBM significant improved BCVA (MD 1.76 letters; 95% CI: 0.04 to 3.48) and drusen volume (MD -0.12 mm³; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) as compared with a sham control. However, the TSA indicated that the current sample sizes were insufficient for reliable conclusions. No significant differences were observed in GA area. The MCID analysis suggested that the statistically significant results did not translate into clinically significant benefits. In the quality assessment, all studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias.
conclusionThis meta-analysis points limitations in the current evidence base for PBM in dry AMD treatment, with issues around small sample sizes. Statistically significant improvements do not translate into clinical benefits. The research underscores need for larger RCTs to validate PBM's therapeutic potential for dry AMD.
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.