You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of repeated Low-Level red light therapy on axial length in myopic individuals: predictors for a good response

BMC Ophthalmology volume 25, Article number: 273 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the effects of Repeated Low-Level Red Light (RLRL) therapy on axial length (AL) in myopic individuals and to identify key predictors for a good response to the treatment, with a focus on baseline ocular characteristics and treatment compliance.

Methods

A total of 91 participants were enrolled, with 50 classified in the poor responders’ group and 41 in the good responders’ group. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, pupil constriction diameter (PCD), intraocular pressure (IOP), spherical equivalent refraction (SER), AL, corneal curvature (ACC), and choroidal thickness (CT) were recorded. Compliance and AL changes were tracked over one year. Univariable and multivariable analyses identified factors associated with AL changes.

Results

Good responders’ group showed a significant AL reduction (-0.29 ± 0.16 mm, p < 0.001), while poor responders’ group had an increase (+ 0.23 ± 0.12 mm, p < 0.001). Good responders’ group had lower initial SER (-4.15 ± 2.87 D vs. -2.62 ± 1.80 D, p = 0.004) and longer AL (24.76 ± 1.21 mm vs. 24.15 ± 0.99 mm, p = 0.010). Both groups showed CT changes (p < 0.001), with greater increases in good responders. Univariable analysis identified initial AL and SER as predictors of a good response (both p < 0.001). Compliance showed a trend toward significance in multivariable analysis (β = -0.196, p = 0.052).

Conclusion

Longer baseline AL and lower SER are key predictors of a good response to RLRL therapy. Moreover, treatment compliance showed a trend toward significance, emphasizing its crucial role in achieving optimal outcomes.

Peer Review reports

Background

Myopia is an increasingly prevalent global public health issue, particularly among children and adolescents. The rising rates of myopia are of concern, as high myopia can lead to sight-threatening complications such as retinal detachment, myopic maculopathy, and glaucoma [1, 2]. Various interventions, including pharmacological approaches like low-dose atropine [3], optical devices such as orthokeratology [4, 5], peripheral defocus lenses [6], and lifestyle modifications like increased outdoor time [7], have been explored to slow the progression of myopia. Recently, RLRL therapy has emerged as a novel non-invasive approach to myopia control, gaining attention for its potential to slow axial elongation [8,9,10,11,12].

RLRL therapy involves the application of red light, typically at a wavelength of 650 nm, to stimulate photoreceptors in the eye, which may help slow the growth of AL– a key factor in myopia progression. Clinical studies have shown that RLRL therapy can significantly slow myopia progression in children by reducing the rate of AL elongation [13,14,15]. For instance, one meta-analysis found that children treated with RLRL experienced a 0.22 mm/year reduction in axial elongation compared to controls [16]. Moreover, combining RLRL with orthokeratology shows a positive trend, enhancing its efficacy [17]. The precise mechanisms through which RLRL controls myopia progression remain unclear. However, studies suggest that RLRL intervention increases blood flow and reduces oxidative stress and inflammation, which helps alleviate scleral hypoxia and prevents the development of myopia [18, 19]. Additionally, the study hypothesizes that red light therapy may promote scleral remodeling or shortening, potentially reducing AL and controlling myopia progression [20].

Myopia control methods may have some side effects, such as photophobia and allergic conjunctivitis associated with low-concentration atropine [21]. Although most clinical studies show that RLRL therapy is well tolerated with only minor adverse reactions, such as temporary discomfort from bright light exposure [16], emerging studies highlight potential side effects and safety concerns. A two-year randomized controlled trial identified a rebound phenomenon in therapeutic outcomes upon discontinuation of sustained RLRL application [22]. Notably, clinical case reports have documented retinal injury in a pediatric patient (12-year-old female) manifesting retinal abnormalities following multiple low-intensity RLRL sessions [23]. Concurrently, safety assessments have raised concerns that some RLRL devices may exceed the established thermal and photochemical maximum permissible exposure limits, increasing the risk of retinal damage [24]. These findings are consistent with recent insights from Schaeffel and Wildsoet, who stress the need for thorough investigation into these risks, especially in terms of long-term ocular safety [25].

This study aims to investigate the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of myopic individuals undergoing RLRL therapy, with a focus on changes in AL and identifying key predictors of a good response. By analyzing these predictors, this research seeks to contribute to the development of more personalized and effective strategies for managing myopia progression.

Methods

Study population

The study, approved by the hospital’s ethics committee in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, obtained written parental consent. This retrospective study analyzed device readouts and medical records of children who underwent RLRL therapy for myopia control at the Children’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, from October 2022 to October 2023. To ensure confidentiality, each child was assigned a unique ID, and only right-eye data were collected to avoid redundancy. Of the 157 screened subjects, those with myopia who wore only regular glasses and used RLRL, 44 were excluded for inconsistent RLRL use, low compliance (< 60%), prolonged afterimage (> 6 min), or discomfort, and 22 for insufficient AL change (< 0.1 mm/year) (Fig. 1). A total of 91 children were included. Data collection was carefully conducted using device readouts and medical records. Participants were classified as good responders (AL decrease > 0.1 mm) or poor responders (AL increase > 0.1 mm), facilitating a clear comparison of AL change. This threshold was established based on AL measurement accuracy and clinically significant progression criteria adapted from published research [26].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of participant recruitment and grouping.

AL: axial length, ΔAL: Change in AL (AL at the one-year visit − AL at baseline)

Full size image

Intervention

Participants used a red light device from Suzhou Xuanjia Optoelectronics Technology, This device emits red light at a wavelength of 650 ± 10 nm, with an illumination intensity around 1600 lx and an optical power of 0.29 mW through a 4 mm pupil. It meets IEC 60825-1:2014 safety standards and is certified as a class IIa medical device by the China National Medical Products Administration. However, starting from July 2024, red light therapy devices will be classified as Class III medical devices, according to the notice issued by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) on July 11, 2023.

The treatment plan involved administering RLRL therapy twice daily, five days a week, with a minimum interval of four hours between sessions, and each session lasting three minutes. Participants were given detailed instructions on the correct use of the device and were required to maintain usage logs. Compliance with the treatment protocol was monitored by reviewing these logs in conjunction with the device’s built-in usage tracking system. It indicates the ratio of actual time to the prescribed time.

Measurements

All measurements were conducted by trained ophthalmic technicians using standardized procedures to ensure consistency. AL was measured with the LS900 optical biometer (HAAG-STREIT), with three measurements per eye, achieving an accuracy of ≤ 0.05 mm. SER and ACC were obtained via cycloplegic refraction using the KR-8800 automatic refractometer (Topcon), with SER calculated as spherical power + (cylinder power)/2, and ACC as (Flat K + Steep K)/2. Measurements were repeated three times per eye, with spherical and cylindrical accuracy ≤ 0.25 D and axial accuracy ≤ 5°. Complete ciliary muscle paralysis was confirmed with compound tropicamide drops. IOP was assessed using the CT-800 non-contact tonometer (Topcon), and PCD was measured by an infrared pupillometer (Eyerising) after red light stimulus. OCT imaging was conducted using the RS-3000 Advance OCT (NIDEK) with a 9 mm radial scan centered on the macula in a dark room to reduce ambient light, allowing automated calculation of CT from the outer choroid to Bruch’s membrane.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 26 (IBM). Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Differences in the male/female (M/F) ratio between groups were assessed using the Chi-squared (χ²) test. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare changes in age, compliance, PCD, SER, IOP, AL, ACC, and CT between groups. Paired t-tests were employed to compare SER, AL, ACC, and CT between baseline and one year after RLRL therapy. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationships between age and changes in AL. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of a good response. The regression coefficients are presented with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.

Results

Participant characteristics

We collected 157 cases of myopia control using red light therapy. Among these, 50 cases exhibited an axial growth of more than 0.1 mm and were classified as poor responders. In contrast, approximately 40% (63/157) of subjects showed effectiveness, with axial growth of less than 0.1 mm over one year. Within this group, 41 cases demonstrated an axial shortening of more than 0.1 mm, classifying them as good responders, while 22 cases showed mild to moderate responses. The mean age of participants was slightly lower in the good responders’ group (10.00 ± 2.85 years) compared to the poor responders’ group (9.18 ± 2.32 years), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.133). Gender distribution was also similar, with 28 males and 22 females in the poor responders’ group, and 16 males and 25 females in the good responders’ group (p = 0.107). Compliance with RLRL therapy was comparable between the two groups, with 83.00 ± 11.06% in the poor responders’ group and 85.67 ± 8.51% in the good responders’ group, showing no significant difference (p = 0.209). Other baseline ocular factors, including PCD and IOP, also showed no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). These baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographics and ocular biometrics of the right eyes in two groups
Full size table

AL changes over time

Over the one-year follow-up period, significant changes in AL were observed between the two groups. The poor responders’ group showed a mean increase in AL of 0.23 ± 0.12 mm (p < 0.001), indicating progression of myopia, while the good responders’ group experienced a significant mean reduction in AL of -0.29 ± 0.16 mm (p < 0.001). This demonstrates that RLRL therapy can result in good treatment responder in certain individuals, as seen in the one-year AL changes in Table 2. Additionally, the Fig. 2 scatter plot illustrates the differences in AL changes between the groups, highlighting the relationship between AL changes and participants’ age. Pearson correlation analysis between age and AL change showed a weak negative correlation (r = -0.127) with a non-significant p-value of 0.232, indicating no strong association between these two factors.

Table 2 Summary of results at one-year follow-up
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Scatter plots showing differences in the ΔAL and age between the two groups

AL: axial length, ΔAL: Change in AL, 95% CI: 95% confidence interval

Full size image

Differences in ocular parameter characteristics between the two groups

Significant differences in ocular parameters were observed between the two groups. The good responders’ group had a significantly lower initial SER compared to the poor responders’ group (-4.15 ± 2.87 D vs. -2.62 ± 1.80 D, p = 0.004), indicating that individuals with more severe initial myopia were more likely to have a better response to the treatment. Additionally, the good responders’ group had a longer initial AL (24.76 ± 1.21 mm) compared to the poor responders’ group (24.15 ± 0.99 mm, p = 0.010). However, parameters such as ACC, CT and IOP showed no statistically significant differences between the groups at baseline (p > 0.05), as shown in Table 1.

At the one-year follow-up, both groups demonstrated changes in ACC and CT. In the good responders’ group, CT increased significantly from 242.02 ± 28.13 μm to 263.93 ± 28.02 μm (p < 0.001), while the poor responders’ group showed a smaller, yet still significant, increase from 247.02 ± 28.06 μm to 261.54 ± 28.40 μm (p < 0.001). The increase in CT over one year was significantly greater in the good responders’ group compared to the poor responders’ group (p < 0.001). The changes in CT over time for both groups are presented in detail in Table 2.

Factors associated with reduction in AL after one year of treatment

Univariable analysis identified initial AL and SER as significant predictors of AL reduction (both p < 0.001). Specifically, participants with longer initial AL and lower SER were more likely to experience a reduction in AL after one year of RLRL therapy. Other factors, including age, gender, treatment compliance, CT, PCD, and IOP, did not show significant associations with AL reduction in the univariable analysis (p > 0.05).

In the multivariable analysis, although none of the factors reached statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level, treatment compliance demonstrated a trend towards significance (β = -0.196, p = 0.052), suggesting that higher compliance may contribute to greater reductions in AL. These findings are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Univariable and multivariable analyses of the associations between all potential factors and changes in AL
Full size table

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of myopic individuals undergoing RLRL therapy, with a focus on AL changes and identifying predictors of a good response. The findings offer valuable insights into the efficacy of RLRL therapy in managing myopia and highlight several factors that may influence treatment success.

Participant characteristics and treatment compliance

The baseline characteristics, including age, gender, compliance, PCD, CT, and IOP, showed no significant differences between the two groups, suggesting that these factors did not influence RLRL therapy outcomes. Both groups demonstrated high treatment compliance, with the good responders having a compliance rate of 85.67 ± 8.51, slightly higher than the 83.00 ± 11.06 observed in the poor responders. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.209).

Efficacy of RLRL therapy in poor or good responders’ group

A major finding of the study was the significant difference in AL changes between the two groups. The poor responders experienced a mean AL increase of 0.23 mm over one year, indicating continued myopia progression. In contrast, the good responders showed a mean AL decrease of 0.29 mm, suggesting that RLRL therapy effectively stabilized or reduced myopia progression in this group. These results emphasize that RLRL therapy elicits varying responses depending on individual characteristics. While some individuals benefit greatly, others show minimal improvement, underscoring the need for identifying predictors of treatment success.

Scleral hypoxia has been proven to be a promoter of myopia progression [27]. The effects of RLRL therapy may stem from enhanced retinal blood flow and metabolism, along with reduced scleral hypoxia, which helps control myopia progression. However, the exact mechanisms remain unclear. Determining predictors of a good response, such as baseline ocular characteristics and treatment compliance, is vital for optimizing RLRL therapy and customizing it for those most likely to achieve positive outcomes.

Differences in ocular characteristics between the two groups

The initial SER and AL were significantly different between the two groups. Good responders had more severe initial myopia (lower SER) and longer AL compared to poor responders, suggesting that individuals with more advanced myopia may respond better to RLRL therapy. Other ocular parameters, including CT, IOP, PCD, and ACC, did not show significant differences between the groups. While CT [28] and IOP [29] are important in myopia control, their direct influence on RLRL therapy outcomes was not evident in this study.

The increase in CT over the year was significant in both groups, with good responders showing a significantly greater increase (p < 0.001). However, in the good responders’ group, the CT increase (21.9 μm) was much smaller than the AL shortening (0.29 mm). This suggests that the AL shortening might be due to possible scleral remodeling or contraction. The study does not clarify why the group of good responders performed better than the other group, despite the observed results. While one potential explanation could involve the more prolate retinal shape and misalignment of photoreceptors in longer eyes, this remains a hypothesis. Consequently, the discussion around this matter remains speculative and warrants further investigation.

PCD, which reflects pupil constriction in response to light, may influence the amount of red light entering the eye during therapy. While no significant differences in PCD were found between the groups, despite studies indicating a correlation between pupil diameter and myopia progression [30, 31], its role in myopia progression and treatment outcomes warrants further research. Similarly, although previous research has indicated that corneal curvature can influence myopia progression [32, 33], ACC did not show significant differences between the groups, suggesting that it may not be a critical factor in determining the outcomes of RLRL therapy.

Predictors of AL reduction after one year

Univariable analysis identified initial AL and SER as significant predictors of a good response, with individuals having longer AL and lower SER showing greater reductions in AL after one year (p < 0.001). This finding aligns with previous studies, which have demonstrated that red light therapy plays a key role in treating severe myopia [34].

While no factors were statistically significant in the multivariable analysis (p > 0.05), treatment compliance showed a near-significant trend (β = − 0.196, p = 0.052), reinforcing its importance in treatment success. Age and gender were not significantly associated with AL changes, which is consistent with previous studies suggesting that there were no significant differences in the efficacy of myopia prevention among different age groups of children [26].

Clinical implications and future research

The findings of this study suggest that RLRL therapy is effective in controlling myopia progression, especially in individuals with more severe initial myopia and longer AL. These factors are key predictors of a positive response. The results could aid clinical decision-making by identifying patients who are more likely to benefit from RLRL therapy based on their baseline ocular characteristics. Future research is needed to assess the long-term effects of RLRL therapy on AL and myopia progression and to better understand its biological mechanisms. Combining RLRL therapy with other myopia control methods, such as orthokeratology or anti-myopia glasses, may lead to improved outcomes.

Limitation

This study has several limitations. First, the retrospective design, small sample size (91 participants), and 42% exclusion rate limit the generalizability of the findings and may introduce selection bias. Second, the one-year follow-up period may be too short to fully assess the long-term effects of RLRL therapy on a good response. Third, important environmental factors, such as outdoor time and near-work activities, which may influence myopia progression [35], were not considered. Fourth, relying on the device’s built-in and usage logs may not fully capture true compliance. Lastly, the biological mechanisms by which RLRL therapy reduces AL remain unclear.

Conclusion

This study highlights the potential of RLRL therapy in distinguishing between good and poor responders among myopic patients, with the treatment proving effective for approximately 40% of those treated. Key factors for better patient selection include longer AL and greater myopia. Future research should explore why patients with these characteristics tend to respond better to red light therapy than others, and consider recruiting a control group for comparison to further validate the findings.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and Temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1036–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw S-M. Myopia Lancet. 2012;379:1739–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chia A, Lu Q-S, Tan D. Five-Year clinical trial on Atropine for the treatment of myopia 2. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:391–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turnbull PRK, Munro OJ, Phillips JR. Contact Lens methods for clinical myopia control. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:1120–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Xiong F, Mao T, Liao H, Hu X, Shang L, Yu L, et al. Orthokeratology and Low-Intensity laser therapy for slowing the progression of myopia in children. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Erdinest N, London N, Lavy I, Berkow D, Landau D, Morad Y, et al. Peripheral defocus and myopia management: A Mini-Review. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2023;37:70–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Biswas S, El Kareh A, Qureshi M, Lee DMX, Sun C-H, Lam JSH, et al. The influence of the environment and lifestyle on myopia. J Physiol Anthropol. 2024;43:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu G. Efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy combined with optical lenses for myopia control in children and adolescents. Am J Transl Res. 2024;16:4903–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Xu Y, Cui L, Kong M, Li Q, Feng X, Feng K, et al. Repeated Low-Level red light therapy for myopia control in high myopia children and adolescents. Ophthalmology. 2024. S016164202400318X.

  10. Wang F, Peng W, Jiang Z. Repeated Low-Level Red Light Therapy for the Control of Myopia in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice. 2023. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001020

  11. Zhou W, Liao Y, Wang W, Sun Y, Li Q, Liu S, et al. Efficacy of different powers of Low-Level red light in children for myopia control. Ophthalmology. 2024;131:48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Youssef MA, Shehata AR, Adly AM, Ahmed MR, Abo-Bakr HF, Fawzy RM, et al. Efficacy of repeated Low-Level red light (RLRL) therapy on myopia outcomes in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2024;24:78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Xuan M, Zhu Z, Jiang Y, Wang W, Zhang J, Xiong R, et al. Longitudinal changes in choroidal structure following repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy for myopia control: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Asia-Pacific J Ophthalmol. 2023;12:377–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang H, Cui M, Jie Y, Chen T, Kang M, Bai W, et al. Efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy in the prevention and control of myopia in children. Photodiagn Photodyn Ther. 2024;47:104216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tian L, Cao K, Ma D-L, Lu L-X, Zhao S-Q, Li A, et al. Six-month repeated irradiation of 650 Nm low-level red light reduces the risk of myopia in children: a randomized controlled trial. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43:3549–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deng B, Zhou M, Kong X, Luo L, Lv H. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the repeated low-level red light therapy in slowing the progression of myopia in children and adolescents. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.4103/IJO.IJO_1037_23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Xiong R, Wang W, Tang X, He M, Hu Y, Zhang J, et al. Myopia control effect of repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy combined with orthokeratology. Ophthalmology. 2024. S0161642024003087.

  18. Jiang Y, Zhu Z, Tan X, Kong X, Zhong H, Zhang J, et al. Effect of repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy for myopia control in children. Ophthalmology. 2022;129:509–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen H, Wang W, Liao Y, Zhou W, Li Q, Wang J, et al. Low-intensity red-light therapy in slowing myopic progression and the rebound effect after its cessation in Chinese children: a randomized controlled trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023;261:575–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang W, Jiang Y, Zhu Z, Zhang S, Xuan M, Tan X, et al. Axial shortening in myopic children after repeated Low-Level Red-Light therapy: post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12:1223–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen Y, Xiong R, Chen X, Zhang J, Bulloch G, Lin X, et al. Efficacy comparison of repeated Low-Level red light and Low-Dose Atropine for myopia control: A randomized controlled trial. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2022;11:33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Xiong R, Zhu Z, Jiang Y, Kong X, Zhang J, Wang W, et al. Sustained and rebound effect of repeated low-level red‐light therapy on myopia control: A 2‐year post‐trial follow‐up study. Clin Exper Ophthalmol. 2022;50:1013–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu H, Yang Y, Guo J, Peng J, Zhao P. Retinal damage after repeated Low-level Red-Light laser exposure. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141:693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ostrin LA, Schill AW. Red light instruments for myopia exceed safety limits. Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic. 2024;44:241–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schaeffel F, Wildsoet CF. Red light therapy for myopia: merits, risks and questions. Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic. 2024;44:801–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. He X, Wang J, Zhu Z, Xiang K, Zhang X, Zhang B, et al. Effect of repeated Low-level red light on myopia prevention among children in China with premyopia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6:e239612.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu H, Chen W, Zhao F, Zhou Q, Reinach PS, Deng L et al. Scleral hypoxia is a target for myopia control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115.

  28. Jiang X, Xiao P, Tan Q, Zhu Y. Variation of choroidal thickness during the waking period over three consecutive days in different degrees of myopia and emmetropia using optical coherence tomography. PeerJ. 2023;11:e15317.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Shahzadi A, Firdous M, Ayyub F, Qayyum S, Ullah S, Zafar R. Association between intraocular pressure and myopia among children aged 7 to 16 years. J Bahria Uni Med Dent Coll. 2023;13:197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li M, Xu Q, Yan X, Wang J, Xiang Y. Relationship between autonomic nervous system activity and axial length in children. Med Sci Monit. 2023;29.

  31. Poudel S, Jin J, Rahimi-Nasrabadi H, Dellostritto S, Dul MW, Viswanathan S, et al. Contrast sensitivity of ON and OFF human retinal pathways in myopia. J Neurosci. 2024;44:e1487232023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Fan Q, Pozarickij A, Tan NYQ, Guo X, Verhoeven VJM, Vitart V, et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis of corneal curvature identifies novel loci and shared genetic influences across axial length and refractive error. Commun Biol. 2020;3:133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. He X, Sankaridurg P, Naduvilath T, Wang J, Xiong S, Weng R, et al. Normative data and percentile curves for axial length and axial length/corneal curvature in Chinese children and adolescents aged 4–18 years. Br J Ophthalmol. 2023;107:167–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lin Z-H, Tao Z-Y, Kang Z-F, Deng H-W. A study on the effectiveness of 650-nm Red-Light feeding instruments in the control of myopia. Ophthalmic Res. 2023;:664–71.

  35. Karthikeyan SK, Ashwini D, Priyanka M, Nayak A, Biswas S. Physical activity, time spent outdoors, and near work in relation to myopia prevalence, incidence, and progression: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:728–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 82201195, 82201197).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Children’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, China

    Daohuan Kang, Lu Yuan, Jia Feng, Rui Yu & Wen Sun

  2. Institute for Research in Ophthalmology, Foundation for Ophthalmology Development, Poznan, Poland

    Andrzej Grzybowski

  3. Eye Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Kai Jin

Authors
  1. Daohuan Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jia Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rui Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrzej Grzybowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kai Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wen Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: Daohuan Kang, Lu Yuan, Wen Sun, Andrzej Grzybowski, and Kai Jin.Data collection: Daohuan Kang, Rui Yu, and Jia Feng.Statistical analysis: Lu Yuan and Rui Yu.Writing and figure preparation: Daohuan Kang.Manuscript revision: Wen Sun, Kai Jin, and Andrzej Grzybowski.Final approval of the submitted manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kai Jin or Wen Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional research ethics committee of Children’s Hospital, Zhejiang university School of Medicine (2021-IRB-107). All examinations and procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from the participants’ parents.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, D., Yuan, L., Feng, J. et al. Effect of repeated Low-Level red light therapy on axial length in myopic individuals: predictors for a good response. BMC Ophthalmol 25, 273 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12886-025-04109-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12886-025-04109-5

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us