SynthesisLasers in surgery and medicine2026
The Use of Blue Light as an Antimicrobial Treatment Against Staphylococcus aureus: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Blue Light as an Antimicrobial Treatment Against Staphylococcus aureus: A Systematic Review.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundStaphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a major cause of skin, wound, and device-related infections. Blue light (405-470 nm), shows promise for treating this organism. However, the translatability, dosing parameters, safety, and effectiveness remain unclear, and no systematic review currently exists.
objectivesTo evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy and safety of blue light therapy against S. aureus across experimental models.
methodsAll relevant in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials. gov. Studies evaluating blue light without exogenous photosensitizers reporting bacterial or clinical outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using SYRCLE. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD420251089518).
resultsA total of 33 articles met inclusion criteria: 20 planktonic models, 6 biofilm models, and 17 methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) specific outcomes. The predominant wavelength tested was 405 nm (87.9%). Blue light reduced bacterial burden across models, though results varied by dose and experimental conditions. Additionally, 57.6% of studies did not report statistical significance.
conclusionsBlue light demonstrates antimicrobial activity against S. aureus, including MRSA, but heterogeneity in study design and limited in vivo data restrict clinical translation. We propose a standardized set of 8 reported parameters for future blue light studies.
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.