SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Effects of repeated low-level red light therapy on myopia progression in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia management in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Modern Methods for Preventing the Progression of Myopia in Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia control: An update on efficacy and safety.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy in intervening in the progression of myopia in children. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases for relevant studies published from the inception of the databases to 30 April 2025. Subsequently, studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and basic information and outcome data of the included studies were recorded. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool and the NOS, respectively. Finally, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, and meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were conducted using STATA 17. Results: A total of 20 studies were included in this study, involving 2,638 Chinese children, aged from 3 to 16 years, with a baseline spherical equivalent refraction (SER) ranging between +0.75 and -10.00 diopters. A meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, the RLRL group had a slower axial elongation, a lower progression of SER, and a greater increase in subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT). The changes in axial length (AL) at the 6th, 12th, and 24th months of follow-up in the RLRL group relative to the control group were -0.22 mm (95% Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirmed that RLRL therapy can effectively delay the progression of myopia in children during a 6-24 months follow-up, and the efficacy appears to be directly related to the degree of the baseline myopia and the LRLR treatment frequency. However, a causal relationship has been suggested between retinal damage and LRLR treatments, which requires further investigations. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251018947.
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.