ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Efficacy and Safety of At-Home Light-Emitting Diode Photobiomodulation for Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePhotobiomodulation using light-emitting diode (LED) devices has gained popularity for facial rejuvenation. Evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of at-home devices remains fragmented. We aimed to summarize the existing literature evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of at-home LED photobiomodulation devices for facial rejuvenation.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed was conducted for relevant clinical studies, following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort or split-face studies evaluating at-home LED devices for facial rejuvenation were included; studies of in-office devices, laser-based systems, or preclinical models were excluded. Data on wavelength, treatment regimen, clinical outcomes, and adverse events were extracted from each study. Objective and subjective measures of facial aging, including wrinkles, skin elasticity, smoothness, hydration, pore size, and patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction were evaluated.
resultsEight studies comprising 365 participants met inclusion criteria. Treatment wavelengths ranged from 440 to 1072 nm, with red and near-infrared light most commonly used. Across studies, at-home LED therapy was associated with statistically significant improvements in multiple clinical features of facial aging, including wrinkles, skin texture, elasticity, and periorbital rhytids, along with high patient satisfaction. Adverse events were infrequent, mild, and transient.
conclusionsAt-home LED photobiomodulation devices appear to be safe and effective for improving facial aging parameters, particularly those emitting red and near-infrared wavelengths. However, variability in treatment protocols, limited comparative data, and underrepresentation of diverse skin phenotypes highlight the need for larger, standardized, and comparative trials to define their role in evidence-based care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875609What 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.