RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Methodological issues in visible LED therapy dermatological research and reporting
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.12.24313560
DO 10.1101/2024.09.12.24313560
A1 Grimes, David Robert
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/13/2024.09.12.24313560.abstract
AB The advent of mass-market Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has seen considerable interest in potential dermatological applications of LED light photobiomodulation (PBM) for a range of conditions, with a thriving market for direct-to-consumer LED treatments, including red light, blue light, and yellow light wavelengths. Evidence of efficacy for many conditions is however decidedly mixed, with starkly different outcomes reported by different authors. Due to the wide range of irradiances and wavelengths used, interpretation, comparison, and even efficacy evaluation is often impossible or prohibitive, impeding evidence synthesis. This work establishes a framework for objectively cross-comparing patient dose in terms of fluence, and a model for contrasting received dose to typical solar dose at ground level to facilitate interpretation of results and evidence synthesis. This allowes direct cross-comparison of patient skin fluence from LED PMB treatments under different regimes, and a means for evidence synthesis. This was applied to LED PMB data from 27 clinical trials to examine fluences and patient-equivalent solar exposure from LED light-sources for dermatological conditions, including acne vulgaris, wrinkle-reduction, wound-healing, psoriasis severity, and erythemal index. The results of this analysis suggest that fluences, wavelengths, and solar exposure equivalent differed by orders of magnitude in he studies analysed, with effective doses often comparable to typical daily solar exposure. Better dose quantification and plausible biological justification for various wavelengths and fluences are imperative if LED therapy studies for dermatology are to be informative and research replicability improved.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data available in paper. https://github.com/drg85/LEDcheck