SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Exploring the efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy in retarding childhood myopia progression: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the increasing prevalence of childhood myopia, low-level red-light therapy has surfaced as a non-pharmacological method to mitigate its advancement. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) in pediatric populations, providing evidence-based support for its therapeutic usage. Methods: A search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and prominent Chinese databases, including CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang, from their inception until May 13, 2025. This meta-analysis includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that matched the inclusion criteria and was analyzed using Stata software, version 18.0. Results: This meta-analysis included 1,053 participants: 515 in the RLRL and 538 in the control groups. The SMD for SER reduction was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.50, 1.19), SMD for AL reduction was -1.01, (95% CI: -1.60, -0.41), and SMD for SFChT rise was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65-0.98). There is no major publishing bias. Conclusion: The meta-analysis found that children with myopia who got RLRL therapy in addition to normal treatment had significantly slower disease progression than the control group. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251034037, PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251034037.
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.