ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Effect of repeated Low-Level red light therapy on axial length in myopic individuals: predictors for a good response.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of four myopia control interventions in children: a single-center retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- The influence of intraocular pressure in the onset and progression of myopia in children and adolescents: a review of mechanisms and clinical significance.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia control: An update on efficacy and safety.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Transient ocular effects of red light exposure in young adults.Journal of optometryArticle
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
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the effects of Repeated Low-Level Red Light (RLRL) therapy on axial length (AL) in myopic individuals and to identify key predictors for a good response to the treatment, with a focus on baseline ocular characteristics and treatment compliance.
methodsA total of 91 participants were enrolled, with 50 classified in the poor responders' group and 41 in the good responders' group. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, pupil constriction diameter (PCD), intraocular pressure (IOP), spherical equivalent refraction (SER), AL, corneal curvature (ACC), and choroidal thickness (CT) were recorded. Compliance and AL changes were tracked over one year. Univariable and multivariable analyses identified factors associated with AL changes.
resultsGood responders' group showed a significant AL reduction (-0.29 ± 0.16 mm, p < 0.001), while poor responders' group had an increase (+ 0.23 ± 0.12 mm, p < 0.001). Good responders' group had lower initial SER (-4.15 ± 2.87 D vs. -2.62 ± 1.80 D, p = 0.004) and longer AL (24.76 ± 1.21 mm vs. 24.15 ± 0.99 mm, p = 0.010). Both groups showed CT changes (p < 0.001), with greater increases in good responders. Univariable analysis identified initial AL and SER as predictors of a good response (both p < 0.001). Compliance showed a trend toward significance in multivariable analysis (β = -0.196, p = 0.052).
conclusionLonger baseline AL and lower SER are key predictors of a good response to RLRL therapy. Moreover, treatment compliance showed a trend toward significance, emphasizing its crucial role in achieving optimal outcomes.
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.