MVIIIHealth The MVIII app
← Back

Research · Practices

Red light therapy

Meta-analyses of sham-controlled trials find red and near-infrared light raises hair density in pattern hair loss and reduces knee osteoarthritis and neck pain. Results for low back pain, exercise performance, acne and depression are mixed, and a Cochrane review found no vision gain in macular degeneration. Trials report few adverse events. Eye-directed red lasers have one documented retinal injury.

Add to Bio HackChecked 2026-11-13
Status
A practice, not a regulated product. FDA regulates photobiomodulation devices sold for medical uses as class II devices that go through 510(k) premarket notification, under a draft guidance dated January 2023 [1]. A 2018 review counted 13 home-use devices with FDA clearance for androgenetic alopecia [2].
Also called
photobiomodulation, PBM, PBMT, low-level laser therapy, LLLT, low-level light therapy, cold laser, LED light therapy, near-infrared light therapy, red light panel, LED face mask, laser cap
Practiced for
hair growth, hair loss, wrinkles, skin aging, collagen, acne, muscle recovery, exercise performance, joint pain, knee osteoarthritis, back pain, neck pain, tendon pain, fibromyalgia, wound healing, cognition, mood, depression, sleep, fat loss, thyroid, testosterone, eye health

Strong several reviews agree · Moderate one review or consistent trials · Limited one or a few small studies · Untested no study in people, listed with what it rests on

Shown to help12

Reported risks2

What people practice it for, and what was found

Shown to help12

Strong

Hair growth in pattern hair loss

Shown to increase hair density in men and women with androgenetic alopecia compared with sham devices, with large pooled effects and high variation between trials.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 11 double-blind RCTs, hair density rose more with low-level laser devices than with sham (SMD 1.316, 95% CI 0.993 to 1.639), in both sexes and with comb and helmet devices [3]. Across 15 studies (795 participants), the SMD for hair density was 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.36) [4]. Across 38 studies (3,098 patients, 2,930 with androgenetic alopecia), hair density rose against placebo after under 20 weeks (SMD 1.14, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.78) and over 20 weeks (SMD 1.44, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91) [5].
Population
Adults with androgenetic alopecia in 11 RCTs [3], 15 studies [4] and 38 studies treated for 4 to 26 weeks [5].
Sources
[3], [4], [5], [2]
Caveats
Heterogeneity was high, with I² of 81% to 88% [5]. Trials measured hairs per square centimeter over weeks to months, and long-term comparisons between devices are lacking [2]. Data for other types of hair loss were too sparse to pool [5]. The abstracts do not report who funded the device trials.
Strong

Knee osteoarthritis pain

Shown to reduce knee osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo, by about 14 mm on a 100 mm scale in one meta-analysis. A later review rated certainty very low.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 22 placebo-controlled trials (1,063 participants), low-level laser reduced pain by 14.23 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale at the end of therapy (95% CI 7.31 to 21.14) and by 15.92 mm at follow-ups 1 to 12 weeks later (95% CI 6.47 to 25.37). At the doses advised by the World Association for Laser Therapy, the reduction was 18.71 mm. Disability was also reduced [6]. Across 10 placebo-controlled studies (542 participants), pain at rest was lower with photobiomodulation (-0.7, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and the Timed Up and Go test did not differ [7].
Population
1,063 people with knee osteoarthritis in 22 trials [6]. 542 people in 10 trials [7].
Sources
[6], [7]
Caveats
The later review judged every study at unclear to high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence very low [7]. The first review states that major knee osteoarthritis treatment guidelines do not endorse low-level laser [6]. These trials used clinic lasers applied to the joint, not consumer light panels.
Moderate

Neck pain

Shown to reduce chronic neck pain by about 20 mm on a 100 mm scale compared with placebo, lasting up to 22 weeks after treatment, in one meta-analysis.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 16 RCTs (820 patients), pain intensity fell 19.86 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (95% CI 10.04 to 29.68) in 11 trials. In 7 trials with follow-up of 1 to 22 weeks, the reduction was 22.07 mm (95% CI 17.42 to 26.72). In chronic neck pain, the relative risk of improvement was 4.05 (95% CI 2.74 to 5.98) [8].
Population
820 patients with acute or chronic neck pain in 16 trials [8].
Sources
[8]
Caveats
One meta-analysis, published in 2009, of clinic laser treatment applied to painful sites.
Moderate

Tendon pain and plantar fasciitis

Shown to reduce pain in lower-limb tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis by about 13 mm on a 100 mm scale in one meta-analysis, with wide intervals.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across randomized trials, low-level laser reduced pain by 13.15 mm on a 100 mm scale at the end of therapy (95% CI 7.82 to 18.48) and 12.56 mm at 4 to 12 weeks (95% CI 5.69 to 19.42). Disability improved (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.7). Added to exercise at the doses advised by the World Association for Laser Therapy, it reduced pain 18.15 mm more than exercise alone [9].
Population
People with lower extremity tendinopathy or plantar fasciitis in 18 trials, 10 of them against placebo [9].
Sources
[9]
Caveats
The authors note wide confidence intervals, no large trials and no long-term data [9].
Moderate

Fibromyalgia

Shown to improve fibromyalgia symptom, pain and fatigue scores compared with placebo laser in one meta-analysis. It added nothing to an exercise program.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 9 RCTs (325 patients), low-level laser improved Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire scores (SMD 1.16, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.69), pain severity (SMD 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54), tender points, fatigue, stiffness, depression and anxiety more than placebo laser. Laser plus a standardized exercise program gave no extra symptom relief over exercise alone [10].
Population
325 people with fibromyalgia in 9 RCTs [10].
Sources
[10]
Caveats
One meta-analysis of small trials.
Moderate

Thinking and memory

Shown to improve cognitive test scores in older adults with cognitive impairment and in young adults in two meta-analyses of small trials. Home-use devices showed no significant effect.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 11 RCTs in age-related cognitive impairment, photobiomodulation improved global cognition (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.162 to 0.864). The effect was significant in clinical settings (SMD 0.468) and not with home-use devices (SMD 0.616, 95% CI -0.121 to 1.354) [11]. In young healthy adults, transcranial light improved cognition-related outcomes (SMD 0.833, 95% CI 0.458 to 1.209, 14 comparisons from 6 publications) [12]. A systematic review found 29 of 35 human studies reported cognitive improvement, and noted that stroke trials were stopped at phase III for lack of statistical significance [13].
Population
Older adults with cognitive impairment in 11 RCTs [11]. Healthy adults aged 17 to 35 [12]. Healthy adults and people with cognitive disorders in 35 studies [13].
Sources
[11], [12], [13]
Caveats
In the young adult analysis, funnel plot tests indicated publication bias, heterogeneity was high and study quality was rated modest [12]. Only half of the clinical trials in the wider review were randomized [13]. Light was applied to the head, mostly near-infrared at 810 nm.
Moderate

Weight and waist size in obesity

Shown to reduce waist size, weight and BMI in people with obesity in one meta-analysis of 11 trials. Body fat percentage did not change.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 11 RCTs (569 patients), photobiomodulation improved waistline (mean difference -7.28, 95% CI -9.97 to -5.67), weight (-3.54, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.11) and BMI (-1.18, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.43), and lowered C-reactive protein, total cholesterol and HOMA-IR. Fat mass percentage (-0.28, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.69), waist-to-hip ratio and insulin did not differ [14].
Population
569 people with obesity in 11 RCTs with varied comparators, including exercise, diet and sham light [14].
Sources
[14]
Caveats
The abstract does not give units for the mean differences. Comparators varied, and the measure of body fat itself did not change. The authors call for larger multi-center trials with longer follow-up [14].
Moderate

Mouth sores during cancer treatment

Shown to prevent oral mucositis in people having stem cell transplants or head and neck radiotherapy, according to a systematic review behind an international guideline.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A systematic review by the mucositis study group of two international supportive care societies found the evidence supported specific photobiomodulation protocols for preventing oral mucositis and related pain in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and in head and neck radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. For treating established mucositis, or mucositis from chemotherapy alone, no guideline was possible [26].
Population
People with cancer treated by transplant or head and neck radiotherapy [26].
Sources
[26]
Caveats
Applies to light delivered inside the mouth by clinicians under set protocols. The abstract gives no effect sizes, and clinical settings varied widely.
ModerateStudied in children

Childhood nearsightedness

Shown to slow myopia progression in children by 0.68 diopters per 6 months with repeated low-level red light, at low certainty and with very high variation.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 8 studies pooled from 13 (1,857 children and adolescents), repeated low-level red light slowed refractive change by 0.68 D per 6 months (95% CI 0.38 to 0.97, I² 97.7%) and axial lengthening by 0.35 mm per 6 months (95% CI -0.51 to -0.19) compared with control [27].
Population
1,857 children and adolescents, in 8 RCTs, 3 non-randomized trials and 2 cohort studies [27].
Sources
[27]
Caveats
The authors rate the evidence low certainty and call for 2-year trials [27]. This is a desktop laser instrument viewed with the eye, a different thing from a skin panel. See the retinal injury block under Risks.
Limited

Wrinkles and skin collagen

Small trials found less wrinkling and roughness and denser skin collagen after 4 to 15 weeks of red or near-infrared light, compared with sham or no treatment.

The numbers and sources
Effect
In 136 volunteers, 30 twice-weekly sessions of red or broader-spectrum light improved skin roughness by profilometry, collagen density by ultrasound, and blinded ratings of photographs compared with 23 untreated controls [28]. In a sham-controlled split-face trial of 76 people, 633 nm and 830 nm LED light twice a week for 4 weeks reduced wrinkles by up to 36% and raised elasticity by up to 19% from baseline [29]. In 20 women using a 630 nm LED mask twice a week for 3 months, wrinkle depth, firmness and dermal density improved progressively [30].
Population
136 volunteers [28]. 76 people with facial wrinkles [29]. 20 healthy white women [30].
Sources
[28], [29], [30], [23]
Caveats
The largest trial compared with untreated controls, not a sham [28]. The mask study had no control group and tested one branded product [30]. A systematic review of 31 LED trials graded skin conditions other than acne, herpes and acute wound healing C or D, and noted small samples, absent blinding and missing sham controls in some studies [23].
Limited

Diabetic foot ulcers

Small trials found better ulcer healing with low-level light than with sham or control in people with diabetic foot ulcers.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A systematic review of 4 RCTs (131 participants) found all four reported better outcomes for ulcer size or time to healing with low-level light, with no adverse events, over 2 to 16 weeks of follow-up [31].
Population
131 people with diabetic foot ulcers in 4 RCTs [31].
Sources
[31]
Caveats
The reviewers list small samples, unclear allocation concealment, short follow-up and unclear treatment settings [31].
Limited

Thyroid function in Hashimoto's hypothyroidism

One trial found people with autoimmune hypothyroidism needed a lower levothyroxine dose 9 months after 10 sessions of near-infrared laser to the thyroid than after placebo.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Nine months after stopping and then re-titrating levothyroxine, the mean dose needed was 38.59 µg a day in the laser group and 106.88 µg a day in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Thyroid peroxidase antibodies were lower with laser (P = 0.043), and thyroglobulin antibodies did not differ [32].
Population
43 people taking levothyroxine for hypothyroidism from chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, 23 given laser and 20 placebo [32].
Sources
[32]
Caveats
One trial at one center, using a clinical 830 nm laser applied over the thyroid by clinicians.

Mixed results6

Moderate

Low back pain

Mixed results: one meta-analysis found pain reduction with higher-dose laser in chronic low back pain, and a later one found the effect against sham clinically unimportant.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 15 sham-controlled studies (1,039 participants), pain fell by up to 1.40 cm on a 10 cm scale (95% CI -1.91 to -0.88) in trials using at least 3 J per point and in people with pain for under 30 months [15]. Across 12 RCTs (1,046 participants), the effect on pain and disability compared with sham was clinically unimportant in acute, subacute and chronic low back pain, and did not differ meaningfully from exercise [16].
Population
Adults with chronic non-specific low back pain [15]. People with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain [16].
Sources
[15], [16]
Caveats
The earlier review's benefit appeared only in dose and duration subgroups [15]. The later review concluded current evidence does not support its use for this condition [16].
Moderate

Exercise performance

Mixed results: pooled trials found small gains in muscle endurance and cycling time to exhaustion, and no effect on strength, sprinting, running or swimming performance.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 37 double-blind crossover studies (586 participants) of light applied before exercise, muscle endurance in single-joint exercise improved (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.41) and so did cycling time to exhaustion (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59). Strength (p = 0.92), cycling sprints (p = 0.96), running and swimming measures did not change [17]. An earlier review of 39 trials (861 participants) found some effect in favor of phototherapy on time to exhaustion, repetitions, peak torque and lactate, at very low to moderate quality [18]. In athletes, a meta-analysis of 24 studies reported better lower-limb strength up to 8 weeks when laser was applied before exercise [19].
Population
Healthy young adults [17]. Healthy people in 39 trials [18]. Physically active athletes in 24 studies [19].
Sources
[17], [18], [19]
Caveats
The reviews disagree on strength. Light doses, wavelengths and exercise tests varied widely, and samples were small [18].
Moderate

Muscle soreness and damage after exercise

Mixed results: one meta-analysis found no substantial effect on exercise-induced muscle pain or strength loss, and another in athletes found lower soreness and creatine kinase.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 15 studies (317 participants) of a single session before or after exercise, creatine kinase was lower only when laser was applied before exercise (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.02). Swelling, range of movement and strength did not differ from placebo, and the authors concluded phototherapy may not have a substantial effect on exercise-induced muscle injury and pain [20]. A meta-analysis in athletes reported a lower soreness index, creatine kinase and interleukin-6 with laser therapy [19].
Population
317 participants in 15 placebo-controlled studies [20]. Athletes in 24 studies [19].
Sources
[20], [19]
Caveats
Substantial heterogeneity limited the pooled analyses [20]. The athlete review gives no effect sizes in its abstract [19].
Moderate

Acne

Mixed results: red light did not differ from conventional acne treatments in pooled trials, and a Cochrane review found high-quality evidence for light therapies lacking.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 13 RCTs (422 participants), red light did not differ from conventional treatments in inflammatory lesions (weighted mean difference 0.701, 95% CI -0.809 to 2.212) or non-inflammatory lesions (-0.527, 95% CI -3.055 to 2.001) [21]. A Cochrane review of 71 light therapy trials (4,211 participants) could not pool most comparisons and rated the evidence very low in quality. In 3 trials (360 participants), red light with a photosensitizing cream was no different from red light with placebo cream [22]. A systematic review of 31 LED trials gave acne a grade of recommendation of B, on a scale where other skin conditions received C or D [23].
Population
422 people with moderate to severe acne [21]. 4,211 people, mostly with mild to moderate acne and aged 20 to 30 on average [22]. 31 RCTs across skin conditions [23].
Sources
[21], [22], [23]
Caveats
No difference from another treatment is not the same as better than no treatment, and few trials used a sham. Two thirds of the Cochrane trials were industry-sponsored, and fewer than half followed people beyond 8 weeks [22].
Moderate

Depression symptoms

Mixed results: one meta-analysis of 11 trials found lower depression scores, and another found sham-controlled trials in major depression showed no significant advantage.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Across 11 randomized trials, photobiomodulation lowered depression scores (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.35), with light applied to the body outperforming light applied to the head [24]. A meta-analysis of transcranial light found an effect across 8 studies regardless of diagnosis (Hedges' g 1.415), and no significant superiority over sham in the 3 double-blind trials in major depressive disorder (g 0.499, p = 0.211) [25].
Population
People with depression symptoms in 11 trials [24]. 8 studies, 3 of them sham-controlled trials in major depressive disorder [25].
Sources
[24], [25]
Caveats
Evidence quality was rated moderate to very low [24]. The second review describes its own conclusion as weak support and notes likely sample size bias [25].
Limited

Sleep

Mixed results: sleep scores improved in 10 athletes after 14 nights of whole-body red light, and pooled depression trials found no significant effect on sleep.

The numbers and sources
Effect
In 20 female basketball players, 30 minutes of whole-body red light every night for 14 days improved Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores, serum melatonin and 12-minute run performance compared with no light (P < .05) [33]. In trials of photobiomodulation for depression, sleep outcomes did not differ significantly from control (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -2.41 to 0.77) [24].
Population
20 athletes with a mean age of 18.6, 10 per group [33]. People with depression symptoms [24].
Sources
[33], [24]
Caveats
The athlete study had no sham light, so the comparison group knew it was untreated [33].

Not shown to help1

Moderate

Vision in dry macular degeneration

Not shown to improve vision in dry age-related macular degeneration at 12 months in a Cochrane review of 2 small trials.

The numbers and sources
Effect
Corrected visual acuity at 12 months did not differ meaningfully between photobiomodulation and sham or no treatment (mean difference 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05, 2 RCTs, 90 eyes). Conversion to the exudative form did not differ (risk ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.44) [34].
Population
90 participants with non-exudative age-related macular degeneration in 2 single-center RCTs [34].
Sources
[34]
Caveats
Low to very low certainty. One trial was unmasked, and investigators in the other reported conflicts of interest [34]. Searches ran to May 2020.

Claimed, not studied in people1

Untested

Testosterone

Not studied in people. Animal results disagree: a review reports low-level laser raised testosterone in heat-damaged testes, while a study in rams found no rise.

No study in people. This rests on animal studies, how it acts in the body.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A 2025 review of preclinical studies reports that low-level laser therapy eased heat-induced low sperm counts in animal models, in part by raising serum testosterone, and describes light acting through mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase and ATP production [41]. In rams with heat-damaged testes, 808 nm laser at 28 J/cm² did not raise plasma testosterone (P = 0.37) and lowered sperm motility and membrane integrity [42].
Population
Animal models of testicular heat injury [41]. Rams [42].
Sources
[41], [42]
Caveats
The review's abstract does not give species or effect sizes [41]. The ram study aimed laser light at the testes, not a whole-body panel [42]. No study of red light and testosterone in people was located.

Protocols studied

Skin trials used 611 to 650 nm red light at about 9 J/cm² twice a week for 30 sessions [28], 633 nm and 830 nm LEDs twice a week for 4 weeks [29], and a 630 nm mask at 15.6 J/cm² for 12 minutes twice a week for 3 months [30]. Hair trials used laser combs, caps and helmets for 4 to 26 weeks [5]. A skin dose-finding study gave 160 to 640 J/cm² three times a week for 3 weeks [35].

Pain trials used clinic lasers on the joint or tendon. For knee osteoarthritis the doses tied to benefit were 4 to 8 J per treatment spot at 785 to 860 nm, and 1 to 3 J at 904 nm [6]. Exercise studies with positive results used 655 to 950 nm at 20 to 60 J for small muscle groups and 60 to 300 J for large ones, applied before exercise [18]. Brain studies commonly used 810 nm near-infrared light at 20 to 25 mW/cm² and 1 to 10 J/cm² [13]. A review of 11 studies of devices self-applied at home at least three times a week found mostly positive results and called for more randomized trials [36].

Risks

Reported risks2

Limited

Skin reactions at high doses

Two dose-finding trials found blistering and prolonged redness at red light doses of 480 to 640 J/cm², with darker skin reacting at lower doses.

The numbers and sources
Effect
In healthy volunteers given red LED light to the forearm three times a week for 3 weeks, dose-limiting blistering or prolonged redness occurred at 480 J/cm² in one participant in a trial of all skin types (60 people) and at 640 J/cm² in two participants in a trial of non-Hispanic white people (55 people). Other events were mild, transient redness and darkening of the skin. No serious adverse events occurred. The authors set the maximum tolerated dose at 320 J/cm² for skin of color and 480 J/cm² for non-Hispanic white skin [35].
Population
115 healthy adults in two single-blind randomized phase I trials [35].
Sources
[35], [28], [30]
Caveats
These doses are roughly 10 to 70 times the 9 to 16 J/cm² used in the skin trials on this page [28][30]. Forearm skin, 3 weeks.
Limited

Retinal injury from red lasers aimed at the eye

Case reports: one young patient had reversible vision loss and retinal changes after repeated low-level red light for myopia, and two such devices exceeded laser exposure limits in testing.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A systematic review of 20 studies (2,380 participants aged 3 to 18) found two case reports describing the same patient, whose reduced visual acuity and retinal scan abnormalities resolved 4 months after stopping. No permanent vision loss was reported, temporary afterimages were the most common symptom, and the incidence of side effects was 0.088 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0.02 to 0.50) [37]. A 2023 case report describes retinal damage after repeated low-level red-light laser exposure [38]. Bench testing of two red light instruments for myopia found that 3 minutes of continuous viewing approached or surpassed the maximum permissible exposure for the retina [39].
Population
1,436 children treated with repeated low-level red light for a median of 9 months [37]. One patient [38]. Two devices [39].
Sources
[37], [38], [39]
Caveats
This concerns instruments that send laser light into the eye. The longest follow-up was 24 months [37]. No comparable study of eye exposure from skin panels or masks was located.

Checked, no increase found2

Moderate

Adverse events in trials

Adverse events were absent or mild and no more common than with placebo across meta-analyses of pain, tendon and acne trials.

The numbers and sources
Effect
No adverse events were reported across 22 knee osteoarthritis trials [6] or in tendinopathy trials [9]. In neck pain trials, side effects were mild and did not differ from placebo [8]. In acne trials, adverse events with red light were mild or absent [21]. In a sham-controlled facial trial, no adverse effects occurred in 76 people [29].
Population
1,063 people with knee osteoarthritis [6]. 820 people with neck pain [8]. 422 people with acne [21]. 76 people in a facial trial [29].
Sources
[6], [9], [8], [21], [29], [22]
Caveats
Trials lasted weeks to months. A Cochrane review of light therapies for acne rated the evidence on adverse effects very low in quality because trials reported them inadequately [22].
Limited

Cancer

A systematic review found no clinical trial reports of new or recurrent cancer with light therapy for skin rejuvenation. Animal tumor studies gave varied results.

The numbers and sources
Effect
The review found no clinical trial data linking photobiomodulation for skin rejuvenation with any significant adverse event, including new or recurrent malignancy. In cell studies, red and near-infrared light mostly reduced or did not change the growth of cancer cells, and animal tumor models showed no clear pattern [40].
Population
Clinical trials of skin rejuvenation, in vitro studies of human skin and cancer cells, and animal tumor models [40].
Sources
[40]
Caveats
Skin rejuvenation trials are small and short, and were not designed to detect cancer. The laboratory findings are in vitro and animal.

Claims tested and not found

  1. That photobiomodulation relieves non-specific low back pain. Across 12 RCTs, the effect on pain and disability compared with sham was clinically unimportant [16].
  2. That red light improves vision in dry macular degeneration. Visual acuity at 12 months did not differ from sham or no treatment in a Cochrane review [34].
  3. That red light before exercise raises strength or sprint performance. Strength, cycling sprints, running and swimming performance did not change across 37 sham-controlled studies [17].
  4. That red light outperforms standard acne treatments. Lesion counts did not differ across 13 RCTs [21].
  5. That transcranial light beats a sham in major depression. The 3 double-blind sham-controlled trials showed no significant superiority [25].
  6. That adding laser to exercise helps fibromyalgia more than exercise alone. It gave no extra symptom relief [10].

Sources

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Photobiomodulation (PBM) Devices: Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions. Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. 2023. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/photobiomodulation-pbm-devices-premarket-notification-510k-submissions
  2. Dodd EM, Winter MA, Hordinsky MK, et al. Photobiomodulation therapy for androgenetic alopecia: A clinician's guide to home-use devices cleared by the Federal Drug Administration. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/14764172.2017.1383613
  3. Liu KH, Liu D, Chen YT, Chin SY. Comparative effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for adult androgenic alopecia: a system review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lasers in Medical Science. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-019-02723-6
  4. Gupta AK, Carviel JL. Meta-analysis of photobiomodulation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2019.1688755
  5. Perez SM, Vattigunta M, Kelly C, Eber A. Low-Level Laser and LED Therapy in Alopecia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dermatologic Surgery. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1097/dss.0000000000004442
  6. Stausholm MB, Naterstad IF, Joensen J, et al. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031142
  7. Oliveira S, Andrade R, Valente C, et al. Effectiveness of Photobiomodulation in Reducing Pain and Disability in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Physical Therapy. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae073
  8. Chow RT, Johnson MI, Lopes-Martins RAB, Bjordal JM. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in the management of neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo or active-treatment controlled trials. The Lancet. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61522-1
  9. Naterstad IF, Joensen J, Bjordal JM, et al. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in patients with lower extremity tendinopathy or plantar fasciitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059479
  10. Yeh SW, Hong CH, Shih MC, et al. Low-Level Laser Therapy for Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain Physician. 2019. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj/2019.22.241
  11. Gao Y, An R, Huang X, et al. Effectiveness of photobiomodulation for people with age-related cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers in Medical Science. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-023-03899-8
  12. Salehpour F, Majdi A, Pazhuhi M, et al. Transcranial Photobiomodulation Improves Cognitive Performance in Young Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2019.4673
  13. Lee TL, Ding Z, Chan AS. Can transcranial photobiomodulation improve cognitive function? A systematic review of human studies. Ageing Research Reviews. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101786
  14. Sun W, Zhuang Z, Yang L, et al. Effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy in improving health indicators in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-025-04874-2
  15. Glazov G, Yelland M, Emery J. Low-Level Laser Therapy for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Acupuncture in Medicine. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/acupmed-2015-011036
  16. Tomazoni SS, Almeida MO, Bjordal JM, et al. Photobiomodulation therapy does not decrease pain and disability in people with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2020.06.010
  17. Dutra YM, Malta ES, Elias AS, et al. Deconstructing the Ergogenic Effects of Photobiomodulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of its Efficacy in Improving Mode-Specific Exercise Performance in Humans. Sports Medicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01714-y
  18. Vanin AA, Verhagen E, Barboza SD, et al. Photobiomodulation therapy for the improvement of muscular performance and reduction of muscular fatigue associated with exercise in healthy people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers in Medical Science. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-017-2368-6
  19. Luo WT, Lee CJ, Tam KW, Huang TW. Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Muscular Performance and Soreness Recovery in Athletes: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Sports Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/19417381211039766
  20. Nampo FK, Cavalheri V, Ramos SP, Camargo EA. Effect of low-level phototherapy on delayed onset muscle soreness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers in Medical Science. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1832-4
  21. Wu Y, Deng Y, Huang P. Application of red light therapy for moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14369
  22. Barbaric J, Abbott R, Posadzki P, et al. Light therapies for acne. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd007917.pub2
  23. Jagdeo J, Austin E, Mamalis A, et al. Light-emitting diodes in dermatology: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22791
  24. Ji Q, Yan S, Ding J, et al. Photobiomodulation improves depression symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1267415
  25. Cho Y, Tural U, Iosifescu DV. Efficacy of Transcranial Photobiomodulation on Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis. Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2023.0041
  26. Zadik Y, Arany PR, Fregnani ER, et al. Systematic review of photobiomodulation for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04890-2
  27. Tang J, Liao Y, Yan N, et al. Efficacy of Repeated Low-Level Red-Light Therapy for Slowing the Progression of Childhood Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.036
  28. Wunsch A, Matuschka K. A Controlled Trial to Determine the Efficacy of Red and Near-Infrared Light Treatment in Patient Satisfaction, Reduction of Fine Lines, Wrinkles, Skin Roughness, and Intradermal Collagen Density Increase. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2013.3616
  29. Lee SY, Park KH, Choi JW, et al. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, and split-face clinical study on LED phototherapy for skin rejuvenation: Clinical, profilometric, histologic, ultrastructural, and biochemical evaluations and comparison of three different treatment settings. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2007.04.008
  30. Couturaud V, Le Fur M, Pelletier M, Granotier F. Reverse skin aging signs by red light photobiomodulation. Skin Research and Technology. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.13391
  31. Tchanque-Fossuo CN, Ho D, Dahle SE, et al. A systematic review of low-level light therapy for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12399
  32. Höfling DB, Chavantes MC, Juliano AG, et al. Low-level laser in the treatment of patients with hypothyroidism induced by chronic autoimmune thyroiditis: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lasers in Medical Science. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-012-1129-9
  33. Zhao J, Tian Y, Nie J, et al. Red Light and the Sleep Quality and Endurance Performance of Chinese Female Basketball Players. Journal of Athletic Training. 2012. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-47.6.08
  34. Henein C, Steel DH. Photobiomodulation for non-exudative age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013029.pub2
  35. Jagdeo J, Nguyen JK, Ho D, et al. Safety of light emitting diode-red light on human skin: Two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Biophotonics. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201960014
  36. Gavish L, Houreld NN. Therapeutic Efficacy of Home-Use Photobiomodulation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review. Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2018.4512
  37. Chen Y, Xiong R, Yang S, et al. Safety of repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia: A systematic review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjo.2024.100124
  38. Liu H, Yang Y, Guo J, et al. Retinal Damage After Repeated Low-level Red-Light Laser Exposure. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.1548
  39. Ostrin LA, Schill AW. Red light instruments for myopia exceed safety limits. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13272
  40. Glass GE. Photobiomodulation: A Systematic Review of the Oncologic Safety of Low-Level Light Therapy for Aesthetic Skin Rejuvenation. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad018
  41. Niu Y, Xin Z, Lin G, et al. [Low-level laser therapy for the treatment of male infertility and erectile dysfunction]. Journal of Peking University. Health Sciences. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40754896/
  42. Alves MB, de Arruda RP, Batissaco L, et al. Low-level laser therapy to recovery testicular degeneration in rams: effects on seminal characteristics, scrotal temperature, plasma testosterone concentration, and testes histopathology. Lasers in Medical Science. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-016-1911-1

Everything in the library