Digestery
Lifestyle practices › Red Light and Skin

Does red light therapy work for skin?

Updated Nov 14, 2026 · 41 papers read from PubMed abstracts · 7 on topic

Under review. A person has not yet checked this short answer against the sources. Until they do, search engines are asked not to list this page. See the 7 open items

Short answer

Maybe a little; trials are small.

Six small trials, the largest with 137 women, found some wrinkle or texture improvement after red light. All were short, half had no clear fake-light group, and one found no change on expert ratings.

Confidence

Low

What “low” means

This page says what the research shows. It does not say whether you should use red light therapy.

Where the evidence stands

Each dot is one on-topic paper. Steps near the top answer the question more directly. Select a dot to see the study.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: wrinkles and skin aging

    Trials that measured wrinkles and skin aging directly.

    6

    5 benefit, 1 mixed

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    Trials that measured other health or performance measures.

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    Trials that measured lab tests, side effects or safety.

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  4. Population studies

    Studies that followed or surveyed groups of people. They show links, not causes.

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  5. Blood levels and genes

    Studies that link blood levels or genes to health.

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

Not on the ladder: 1 review of many studies (shown below). Counts are papers, not people. Some studies appear in more than one paper.

See every study

What we found

  • In a sham-controlled trial, a home mask with red and near-infrared light improved crow's feet ratings at 8, 12 and 16 weeks; 86.2% of users improved. Park 2025
  • In another sham-controlled trial, a red LED mask made no difference to specialists' wrinkle scores, though computer-measured wrinkles between the brows and by one eye shortened. Bragato 2025
  • Red (660 nm) and amber light each cut wrinkle volume near the eyes, by 31.6% and 29.9%, in 137 women; there was no untreated comparison. Mota 2023
  • The one pooled review, of 31 studies of LED light across many skin problems, said rejuvenation improved, but its abstract gives no wrinkle numbers. Ngoc 2023

What the research says

Trials with a fake light disagree

Three trials compared real light with a fake (sham) light. In one, a home mask with red and near-infrared light improved crow's feet ratings more than sham at 8, 12 and 16 weeks. In that trial 86.2% of mask users improved, a gap of 69.5% over sham.

In a second, a red LED mask made no difference to specialists' wrinkle scores versus sham, though computer-measured wrinkles between the brows and by one eye shortened. A third reported wrinkles fell by up to 36% from the start, but its abstract gives no direct sham comparison.

Studies: Park 2025, Bragato 2025, Lee 2007

Trials without a clear fake-light group

Three trials had no clear sham group. Red and amber light each cut wrinkle volume near the eyes, by 31.6% and 29.9%, but skin moisture and stretchiness did not change. Another found smoother skin and better blinded photo ratings than controls; it does not say what controls received.

The oldest, with no comparison group at all, found 52% of people had a 25%-50% better sun-damage (photoaging) score by week 12, and 81% said eye-area wrinkles improved. Without a sham group, these gains cannot be separated from a placebo effect.

Studies: Mota 2023, Wunsch 2014, Russell 2005

No light color clearly beat another

Broad red-to-near-infrared light was no better than red light alone. Red and amber light at the same dose cut eye wrinkles by similar amounts. A third trial tested 830nm, 633nm and both together, and reported gains in all three groups.

Studies: Wunsch 2014, Mota 2023, Lee 2007

Fewer sessions, few side effects reported

In one trial, two red-light sessions a week gave the same results as three. Three trials described the light as safe or well tolerated, and one reported no side effects in any patient. These trials were too small and short to find rare harms.

Studies: Bragato 2025, Lee 2007, Park 2025, Wunsch 2014

What reviews of many studies found

Reviews pool or sum up earlier studies. They are not on the ladder, because they repeat studies already counted there.

  • Pooled review (meta-analysis) · Ngoc 2023

    Pooled 31 studies of LED light across acne, psoriasis, cold sores, wounds and rejuvenation. Acne showed the clearest pooled effect. It said skin rejuvenation improved, with consistent results, but its abstract gives no wrinkle numbers.

How the research grew

The papers we read span 2005 to 2025. 2 of the 7 on-topic papers came out in 2024 to 2026. The earliest trial in people here is from 2005.

Trials in people
Reviews
2005–09
2010–14
2015–19
2020–24
2025–26
  1. 2005–09
    Trials in people
  2. 2010–14
    Trials in people
  3. 2020–24
    Trials in peopleReviews
  4. 2025–26
    Trials in people

Each dot is one on-topic paper, colored by what it found. Rings mark key papers:

  1. 2005. Early uncontrolled study of red plus infrared LED. Russell 2005
  2. 2007. Early sham-controlled split-face LED wrinkle trial. Lee 2007
  3. 2023. Largest trial: red and amber cut eye wrinkles. Mota 2023
  4. 2025. Sham-controlled trial of a home LED mask. Park 2025
  5. 2025. Sham trial: no change on expert wrinkle scale. Bragato 2025

Who was studied

Who took part, and how many. The largest trial here had 137 people.

  1. Trials in people
  2. 137 people · Mota 2023
    137 women aged 40 to 65 with sun-aged facial skin
  3. 136 people · Wunsch 2014
    136 volunteers, 113 treated and 23 untreated controls
  4. 95 people · Bragato 2025
    95 women aged 45 to 60
  5. 76 people · Lee 2007
    76 people with facial wrinkles
  6. 60 people · Park 2025
    60 adults aged 30 to 65 with crow's feet wrinkles around the eyes
  7. 31 people · Russell 2005
    31 people with facial wrinkles
  8. People in the study, log scale
    1101001,000
  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

Bars use a log scale: each step is ten times more people. Reviews, animal studies and papers with no count in the abstract are not shown.

Who funds this research

None of the six trials declares a company stake. Two state no competing interests; four have no disclosure in PubMed. One used a branded device (Omnilux) with no stake stated. This did not change the confidence.

  • No disclosure in PubMed 4
  • No stake declared 2

Funding rule. A stake is always shown. Confidence is lowered only when every supporting study comes from a party with a stake. "No disclosure in PubMed" means the PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement. It does not mean there is no conflict.

All 7 on-topic papers

Each paper shows what it tested, what it found, and who has a stake. Every paper also has its own page that explains how much it counts and how it fits. See every study as a list.

  1. Randomized trial · measured the question itselfPark et al., 2025Medicine · PubMed

    Clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of home-used LED and IRED mask for crow's feet: A multi-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study.

    60 people · 60 adults aged 30 to 65 with crow's feet wrinkles around the eyes

    TestedA home mask with red (630 nm) LED plus near-infrared (850 nm) light for 16 weeks, vs a sham mask that looked the same

    Independent raters scored crow's feet better with the real mask than the sham at 8, 12 and 16 weeks. With the real mask 86.2% improved (full analysis set), a gap of 69.5% over sham.

    Points to benefitNo stake declaredAbstract only

    No conflicts of interest disclosed.

    Read the study page

  2. Randomized trial · measured the question itselfBragato et al., 2025Lasers in medical science · PubMed

    Role of photobiomodulation application frequency in facial rejuvenation: randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial.

    95 people · 95 women aged 45 to 60

    TestedRed LED mask (660 nm), 3 times a week (12 sessions) or 2 times a week (8 sessions) for 4 weeks, vs sham light twice a week

    Specialists' wrinkle scale showed no difference between groups. Computer-measured glabellar and right eye-area wrinkle length fell more with light than sham (p < 0.001). Satisfaction was 79.6% and 73.4% (p = 0.001 and p = 0.034).

    MixedNo stake declaredAbstract only

    No competing interests declared.

    Read the study page

  3. Randomized trial · measured the question itselfMota et al., 2023Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery · PubMed

    Photobiomodulation Reduces Periocular Wrinkle Volume by 30%: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

    137 people · 137 women aged 40 to 65 with sun-aged facial skin

    Tested10 sessions over 4 weeks of red (660 nm) light on one side of the face and amber (590 nm) light on the other, same dose of 3.8 J/cm2; no untreated side

    Wrinkle volume near the eyes fell 31.6% with red and 29.9% with amber light. Skin moisture and stretchiness did not improve. Quality of life scores improved.

    Points to benefitNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract only

    No disclosure in PubMed.

    Read the study page

  4. Randomized trial · measured the question itselfWunsch et al., 2014Photomedicine and laser surgery · PubMed

    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.

    136 people · 136 volunteers, 113 treated and 23 untreated controls

    TestedRed (611-650 nm) or red-to-near-infrared (570-850 nm) broad light, twice a week for 30 sessions, vs 23 controls; the abstract does not say what controls received

    Treated groups had better skin complexion, less skin roughness on profilometry, and higher collagen density on ultrasound than controls. Blinded photo ratings agreed. Broad light was no better than red light alone.

    Points to benefitNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract only

    No disclosure in PubMed.

    Read the study page

  5. Randomized trial · measured the question itselfLee et al., 2007Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. B, Biology · PubMed

    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.

    76 people · 76 people with facial wrinkles

    TestedLED light on half the face, twice a week for 4 weeks: 830 nm, 633 nm, both together, or sham light; 3 months follow-up

    Wrinkles were reduced by up to 36% and skin elasticity rose by up to 19% from baseline in the three light groups. Skin samples showed more collagen and elastic fibers.

    Points to benefitNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract only

    No disclosure in PubMed.

    Read the study page

  6. Trial, not randomized · measured the question itselfRussell et al., 2005Journal of cosmetic and laser therapy · PubMed

    A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation.

    31 people · 31 people with facial wrinkles

    Tested9 treatments with red (633 nm) plus near-infrared (830 nm) LED light using the Omnilux system; no comparison group

    Skin surface roughness measures changed at week 12. 52% of people had a 25%-50% improvement in photoaging scores. 81% reported a big improvement in eye-area wrinkles.

    Points to benefitNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract only

    No disclosure in PubMed; the device is a branded commercial system (Omnilux).

    Read the study page

  7. Pooled review (meta-analysis)Ngoc et al., 2023Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · PubMed

    Utilization of light-emitting diodes for skin therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

    31 studies · People treated with LED light for skin problems, mostly acne

    TestedRed, blue, yellow and near-infrared LED light compared across 31 studies

    Acne results were strongest (SMD of -2.42 [-2.64, -2.15]). The authors say other LEDs improved skin rejuvenation, with I2 = 0% and 33%, but give no wrinkle numbers.

    Points to benefitNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract only

    No disclosure in PubMed; funded by Korean government grants.

    Read the study page

34 papers we read and set aside as off topic
  1. Miron et al., 2025. Periodontal regeneration using platelet-rich fibrin. Furcation defects: A systematic review with meta-analysis. (pooled review (meta-analysis))
  2. Wessing et al., 2018. Guided Bone Regeneration with Collagen Membranes and Particulate Graft Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (pooled review (meta-analysis))
  3. Miron et al., 2025. Autogenous platelet concentrates for treatment of intrabony defects-A systematic review with meta-analysis. (pooled review (meta-analysis))
  4. Chambrone et al., 2015. Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. (pooled review (meta-analysis))
  5. Carey et al., 2022. New wrinkles in hypertension management 2022. (opinion or narrative review)
  6. Huang et al., 2020. Light-Emitting Diode-Based Photodynamic Therapy for Photoaging, Scars, and Dyspigmentation: A Systematic Review. (systematic review)
  7. Kim et al., 2024. Effects of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist on Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover Markers: A Meta-Analysis. (pooled review (meta-analysis))
  8. Deana et al., 2021. Photobiomodulation Therapy in Burn Wound Healing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies. (pooled review (meta-analysis))
  9. Escudero et al., 2019. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in bone repair: A systematic review. (systematic review)
  10. Choi et al., 2024. Efficacy and safety of a home-use handheld multi-energy-based device for skin rejuvenation: clinical, ex vivo, and histological studies. (randomized trial)
  11. Zdzieblik et al., 2017. Improvement of activity-related knee joint discomfort following supplementation of specific collagen peptides. (randomized trial)
  12. Kang et al., 2023. Anti-wrinkle properties of Angelica gigas Nakai root extracts using mineral-rich water. (randomized trial)
  13. Humbert et al., 2003. Topical ascorbic acid on photoaged skin. Clinical, topographical and ultrastructural evaluation: double-blind study vs. placebo. (randomized trial)
  14. Zhong et al., 2024. Combination therapy of negative pressure wound therapy and antibiotic-loaded bone cement for accelerating diabetic foot ulcer healing: A prospective randomised controlled trial. (randomized trial)
  15. Inoue et al., 2016. Ingestion of bioactive collagen hydrolysates enhance facial skin moisture and elasticity and reduce facial ageing signs in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study. (randomized trial)
  16. Krogh et al., 2024. Bone remodeling in survivors of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: Impact of heavy resistance training. (trial, not randomized)
  17. Urban et al., 2025. Impact of Collagen Membrane in Vertical Ridge Augmentation Using Ti-Reinforced PTFE Mesh: A Randomised Controlled Trial. (randomized trial)
  18. Mascarenhas et al., 2023. A Phase Ib Trial of AVID200, a TGFβ 1/3 Trap, in Patients with Myelofibrosis. (trial, not randomized)
  19. Li et al., 2022. Efficacy of Yigu® versus Aclasta® in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a multicenter prospective study. (randomized trial)
  20. Carruthers et al., 2007. Eyebrow height after botulinum toxin type A to the glabella. (randomized trial)
  21. Chapurlat et al., 1997. Long-term effects of intravenous pamidronate in fibrous dysplasia of bone. (trial, not randomized)
  22. Yuan et al., 2025. Er:YAG and Nd:YAG-based low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with medical collagen improve third-molar extraction wound healing: a randomized controlled trial. (randomized trial)
  23. Zhang et al., 2015. Mechanical Stress and the Induction of Lung Fibrosis via the Midkine Signaling Pathway. (other)
  24. Isler et al., 2025. Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Peri-Implantitis Reconstructive Therapy: 7-Year Survival and Success of a Randomized Clinical Trial. (randomized trial)
  25. delaO-Escamilla et al., 2025. Comparison of microneedling and CO2 laser with adipose-derived stem cells for facial rejuvenation: a randomized split-face study. (randomized trial)
  26. Knapik et al., 2020. Achilles Tendinopathy: Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention, and Screening. (opinion or narrative review)
  27. Xiao et al., 2024. Genetic diagnosis of Alport syndrome in 16 Chinese families. (other)
  28. Lin et al., 2024. Genotype-phenotype relationship and comparison between eastern and western patients with osteogenesis imperfecta. (population study: one-time survey)
  29. Barbon et al., 2022. Bio-Engineered Scaffolds Derived from Decellularized Human Esophagus for Functional Organ Reconstruction. (cell study)
  30. Storoni et al., 2023. From Genetics to Clinical Implications: A Study of 675 Dutch Osteogenesis Imperfecta Patients. (population study: followed a group)
  31. De Giuseppe et al., 2025. Collagen-binding integrin α11β1 contributes to joint destruction in arthritic hTNFtg mice. (animal study)
  32. Ho et al., 2020. Detection of CSF1 rearrangements deleting the 3' UTR in tenosynovial giant cell tumors. (other)
  33. Peters et al., 2025. Combination Use of 1440-nm and 1927-nm Nonablative Fractional Laser With Monopolar Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Facial Skin Laxity, Skin Texture, and Pigmentation. (trial, not randomized)
  34. Brækkan et al., 2025. The Plasma Proteome and Risk of Future Venous Thromboembolism-Results from the HUNT Study. (population study: followed a group)

Words on this page

SMD (standardized mean difference)
A way to compare results measured on different scales. About 0.2 is a small effect, 0.5 medium, and 0.8 large.
p-value (p =)
How likely a result this large would be by chance if there were no real effect. Below 0.05 is usually called a clear result.
Placebo
A dummy pill or fake treatment, so people do not know which group they are in.
Pooled review (meta-analysis)
A study that combines the results of many earlier studies to get one overall answer.

How the short answer is set

Fixed rules turn the studies into the short answer, so the same studies always give the same answer. The rules start from GRADE, a standard system for rating evidence, in plain language.

ConfidenceWhat it means
HighWe are confident the answer is right.
ModerateThe answer is probably right, but it could change.
Low (this page)The answer may well change.
Very lowAny answer is very uncertain.
Not tested in peopleOnly cell or animal studies exist.

Why low here

  • Six trials measured wrinkles directly, but all were small, the largest 137 women.
  • Half lacked a clear sham (fake light) group, so placebo effects cannot be ruled out.
  • Results disagree: one sham-controlled trial found no change on expert wrinkle ratings.
  • Treatments lasted 4 to 16 weeks; no trial checked results beyond a few months.

How this page was made

Label

Search
PubMed, Nov 14, 2026. Searches written by Claude Opus 5.5; papers ranked by PubMed
First read of all 41 papers
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Disagreements settled by
Claude Opus 5.5
Page text written by
Claude Opus 5.5
Charts
Drawn by code from the study records
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.
Expert review
No
Papers read in full
0 of 41; all from PubMed abstracts
Method
v0.2, created Nov 14, 2026
34numbers in the two reads checked against the abstracts. 1 was not found as written and was fixed.
16key numbers on this page checked again against the papers they cite. All were found.
6 / 41papers where both reads agreed on all ten checked fields.
10fields corrected by the reviewer after reading the abstract.

Search. We ran four PubMed searches for red light therapy (photobiomodulation) and wrinkles and skin aging: pooled and systematic reviews since 2012 (10 of 56), trials in people (22 of 212), population studies (10 of 95). The first number is how many papers we read; the second is how many PubMed found. We took the ones PubMed ranks as most relevant. See the full PubMed search. Of the 41 papers read, 7 were on topic.

Limits. Digestery reads at most about 60 papers per question, so large fields are sampled, not covered in full. Abstracts can leave out key details, such as side effects and funding.

Review queue

These items wait for a person. Search engines are asked not to list the page until the first one is done.

  1. OpenThe short answer is new. It waits for a source check by a person.
  2. OpenReview Huang 2020 (LED light plus a skin drug, photodynamic therapy) left out as not light alone; read B kept it. Confirm.
  3. OpenTrial Choi 2024 (home device mixing light, radiofrequency, microcurrent and ultrasound) left out as not light alone; read B kept it. Confirm.
  4. OpenMota 2023 abstract names registration REBEC-6YFCBM, but the record's registration field is empty.
  5. OpenWunsch 2014 abstract does not say what the control group received; check full text for a sham light.
  6. OpenRussell 2005 used the branded Omnilux system and has no disclosure in PubMed; check full text for company ties.
  7. OpenFour of six trials (Mota 2023, Wunsch 2014, Russell 2005, Lee 2007) have no conflict-of-interest statement in PubMed.

Page history

DateChangeReason
Nov 14, 2026Page created from 41 papers.First version of the page.

Flag an error

A flag must point to a source: the passage in the paper, or a link to a study this page missed. A flag starts a new check. Votes never change a page.