Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39960921›Full record

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.

Sang Hyun Park, Seong Oh Park, Jae-A Jung

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

3 authors.

Sang Hyun ParkDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seong Oh ParkDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jae-A JungDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0009-0003-2772-8026

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Infrared RaysLow-Level Light TherapySkin AgingAdultAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID39960921
PMCPMC11835066

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.