Wu · Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy 2026 · structured narrative review · n=?

Repeated low-level red-light therapy for childhood myopia: Efficacy, mechanisms, rebound effects, safety boundaries, and clinical standardization.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review without formal systematic review or meta-analytic methodology

PubMed 42349599 · doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2026.105554 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

The authors conducted a structured narrative review evaluating repeated low-level red-light therapy (RLRL) for childhood myopia control. They searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus from database inception through May 2026. The review prioritized randomized clinical trials, post-treatment follow-up studies, choroidal and retinal imaging evaluations, and laboratory radiometric safety assessments across premyopia, established myopia, and high myopia.

What was found

The abstract reports no quantitative pooled metrics or numerical values. Short-term randomized controlled trials consistently demonstrated reduced axial elongation—with some observing apparent axial shortening—relative to spectacle or sham controls. Human mechanistic studies demonstrated rapid choroidal thickening and increased choroidal perfusion following treatment. However, follow-up studies identified rebound axial elongation following treatment discontinuation. Safety assessments identified reports of retinal injury, transient optical coherence tomography lesions, cone-density changes, and substantial device-to-device radiometric variability.

Why it matters

RLRL has seen rapid clinical adoption for pediatric myopia, but this review highlights that therapeutic benefit cannot be generalized across all red-light devices. It provides a framework for clinicians emphasizing that treatment requires strict device dosimetry, pre-treatment and follow-up retinal imaging, and clear protocols for discontinuation to manage rebound effects.

Limits

The review is narrative rather than a formal systematic review or meta-analysis because primary studies frequently failed to report reproducible device parameters. The underlying evidence base is geographically concentrated, lacks long-term ocular safety surveillance, and relies on biological mechanisms that remain incompletely verified in humans beyond choroidal changes.

Cited by