SynthesisScientific reports2025
Repeated low-level red-light therapy vs. conventional treatments for myopic control in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Duration-Dependent Efficacy and Clinical Safety of Repeated Low-Level Red-Light Therapy for Paediatric Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Childhood myopia in the modern environment: modifiable risk factors and evidence-based prevention.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy compared to conventional myopia treatments to guide clinical application. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to December 2024. To quantify changes in axial length (AL), we computed weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore heterogeneity based on intervention duration and treatment type, while publication bias and result stability were assessed using Egger's and Begg's tests and sensitivity analysis, respectively. Seven studies, comprising one non-randomized controlled trial, two cohort studies, and four randomized controlled trials, were included, involving 691 pediatric participants (349 in the RLRL group and 342 in the control group receiving orthokeratology and atropine). Overall, AL progression in the RLRL group was significantly lower than in the control group (WMD=-0.24 mm, 95% CI [-0.33, - 0.14], P < 0.001, I
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.