Trial reportMedicine2025
Clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of home-used LED and IRED mask for crow's feet: A multi-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of At-Home Light-Emitting Diode Photobiomodulation for Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Facial Ligament Laxity: A Split-face Controlled Exploratory Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- A rare acute presentation of simultaneous bilateral angle closure in a patient using a red light therapy mask.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2026Article
- Review
- A 7-Week, Open-Label Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of 415-nm/633-nm Phototherapy for Treating Mild-to-Moderate Acne in Adolescents and Adults.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the elderly population continues to grow, the demand for antiaging products is increasing concurrently. On our face, wrinkles begin to form first around the eyes, where the skin is the thinnest. Previous studies have suggested that irradiating the skin with light-emitting diode (LED)/infrared emitting diode (IRED) light at 600 to 660 nm/800 to 860 nm, stimulates the cells of the dermis and epidermal tissue and is effective in wrinkle improvement and antiaging. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-level light therapy masks. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized, sham device-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted at 2 institutions. Sixty Asian descent individuals between the ages of 30 and 65 years who showed type II to V skin type on the Fitzpatrick scale were included. Among participants with a score of 2 to 4 on the crow's feet grading scale (CFGS) at rest (without expression), those who sought temporary improvement in both crow's feet were selected. The participants were categorized into 2 groups: the experimental group, which used a device with a combination of 630 nm LED (max 10 mW/cm3) and 850 nm IRED (max 10 mW/cm3), and the control group, which used the sham device. Efficacy evaluation included various evaluations, including the CFGS as rated by independent raters, CFGS scores assigned by investigators, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale evaluation by both investigators and the participants.
resultsAfter using the LED mask for 16 weeks, the CFGS score of the independent raters and investigators showed significant differences at 8, 12, and 16 weeks. In addition, considering the success criteria of this study, a comparison of independent raters showed an improvement rate of ≥69.2% (full analysis set [FAS]: 86.2%, per-protocol set [PPS]: 89.3%) and a difference of ≥49.2% from the control group (FAS: 69.5%, PPS: 72.6%). The change in scores from the baseline showed significant differences between the test group and the control groups at 8, 12, and 16 weeks for both independent raters and investigators.
conclusionLED and IRED phototherapies at 630 nm and 850 nm, respectively, are effective, safe, well-tolerated, and painless treatment for skin rejuvenation.
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.