ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Low-Level Red Light in Controlling Myopia Progression in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Myopia as a Global Public Health Challenge a Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Spectral characteristics of light and their association with myopia progression in children: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of low-level red light (LLRL) therapy compared to single-vision spectacles (SVS) in controlling myopia progression, focusing on spherical equivalent refraction (SER), axial length (AL), and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT). A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving myopic patients aged 16 years or younger. Mean differences were calculated with 95% CIs, and the I² statistic was used to assess heterogeneity among studies. The meta-analysis included 11 RCTs. At three months, significant differences were observed between LLRL and SVS in SER (estimate: 0.225; 95% CI: 0.042, 0.408; p = 0.016) and AL (estimate: -0.137; 95% CI: -0.280, 0.007; p = 0.062). At six months, significant differences were noted in SER (estimate: 0.450; 95% CI: 0.351, 0.550; p < 0.001), AL (estimate: -0.179; 95% CI: -0.278, -0.079; p < 0.001), and SFCT (estimate: 35.281; 95% CI: 23.230, 47.331; p < 0.001). By 12 months, the differences remained significant for SER (estimate: 0.806; 95% CI: 0.675, 0.937; p < 0.001) and AL (estimate: -0.294; 95% CI: -0.416, -0.172; p < 0.001). These findings suggest that LLRL therapy effectively reduces myopia progression in children, as indicated by improvements in SER, slower AL growth, and stabilization or slight increases in SFCT. However, further studies are necessary to determine the optimal dosage, long-term safety, and overall efficacy of LLRL therapy.
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.