What 31 randomised trials say about LED light for skin
Short answer
This systematic review analysed 31 randomised controlled trials of LED treatment for skin. Acne, cold sores and wound healing earned a grade B recommendation; other uses, including rejuvenation, got grade C or D. Common weaknesses were small samples, no blinding, no sham and varied settings.
- Study
- Jagdeo J, Austin E, Mamalis A, et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2018;50(6):613-28.
- Design
- Systematic review of 31 RCTs
- People
- 31 trials
- Topic
- Skin conditions
- Source
- PubMed 29356026 · DOI 10.1002/lsm.22791
Why it matters
It is a useful reality check on how strong the LED evidence really is, condition by condition.
What they did
- Searched the literature in September 2017 for randomised trials of LED treatment of skin conditions.
- Graded the strength of recommendation for each use.
What they found
- 31 trials qualified.
- Grade B for acne, herpes simplex and zoster, and acute wound healing.
- Grade C or D for other conditions.
- Adverse events were few.
What it cannot tell you
- Evidence up to 2017 only.
- Many included trials had fewer than 20 participants.
- Varied treatment parameters make comparison hard.
Takeaway
LED light is low-risk and has moderate evidence for acne; for wrinkles the evidence is weaker than marketing often suggests.
Matching devices
Devices whose published technology match this study: CurrentBody Series 3, Dr. Dennis Gross FaceWare Pro, Dr. Renú SpectraLift, Omnilux Contour and Shark CryoGlow. None of them was the device tested unless the study names it.
Not medical advice. Summary based on the published abstract; read the full paper for detail.