ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
Three-year Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Repeated Low-level Red-light Therapy and Orthokeratology for Myopia Control in Children.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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
Abstract
introductionRepeated low-level red-light therapy (RLRL) has emerged as a noninvasive intervention for myopia control in children. This study compared the 3-year efficacy and safety of RLRL and orthokeratology (OK).
methodsThis retrospective study included 86 children treated with RLRL (n = 40) or OK (n = 46). The RLRL group received two red-light treatment sessions daily and wore single-vision spectacles (SVS), whereas the OK group wore orthokeratology lenses overnight. Axial length (AL) and safety outcomes were assessed over 3 years. The measured baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups.
resultsAt 3 years, during active treatment, the mean change in AL from baseline was 0.00 ± 0.28 mm in the RLRL group and 0.45 ± 0.20 mm in the OK group (P < 0.001). Axial shortening, defined as an AL reduction of ≥ 0.05 mm from baseline, was more frequent in the RLRL group than in the OK group (40.00% vs. 2.17%). Complete myopia control, defined as axial elongation of < 0.10 mm/year, was also more frequent in the RLRL group at 3 years (82.5% vs. 37.0%). No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in either group. One participant in the RLRL group showed reversible retinal hyperreflectivity on optical coherence tomography, without associated visual acuity loss or interruption of treatment.
conclusionDuring active treatment, RLRL was associated with less axial elongation than OK over 3 years in this cohort. Both treatments showed acceptable safety profiles. Whether the observed between-group differences persist after treatment cessation remains unknown.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42720885What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.