SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Effects of repeated low-level red light on refractive development during childhood: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis up to 12 months.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeated low-intensity red light combined with defocus-incorporated multiple segments (DIMS) spectacles for controlling myopia progression in children.American journal of translational research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of longitudinal repeated low-level red light (RLRL) intervention on refractive development in children over a period of up to 12 months. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across four electronic databases, including randomized controlled trials involving RLRL interventions for children. The data covered literature from the establishment of each database up to August 2024. Dose-response meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model to evaluate the impact of RLRL on refractive development at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Design: The research is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Data sources: Data were searched across PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science (WoS), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from their inception to 3 August 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomized controlled trials comparing RLRL with other pharmacological interventions or no treatment for refractive development in children were included. Independent data extraction was conducted, and study quality was assessed. A meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models to evaluate the effects of RLRL on refractive development outcomes compared with control groups. Main outcomes: The main outcomes included anterior corneal curvature, axial length (AL), and spherical equivalent refractive error (SER). Results: In total, 12 unique RCTs were included. For corneal curvature, evidence for interventions with RLRL treatment being flatter than comparators was lacking (SMD = -0.01, 95% Conclusion: RLRL treatment exhibited a non-linear trend, suppressing axial length development and mitigating spherical equivalent refraction severity, with intervention efficacy diminishing by the third month, and the evidence regarding its effectiveness in flattening anterior corneal curvature remains inconclusive. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, Identifier: CRD42024575823.
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.