Digestery
Lifestyle practices › Red Light and Skin › Studies

Randomized trial · measured the question itself

16-week trial in 60 adults: light mask improved crow's feet more than sham mask

Park and colleagues · Medicine · 2025

Original title: 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.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Points to benefit

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.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
60 people · 60 adults aged 30 to 65 with crow's feet wrinkles around the eyes
What was tested
A home mask with red (630 nm) LED plus near-infrared (850 nm) light for 16 weeks, vs a sham mask that looked the same
What it measured
The question itself: wrinkles and skin aging
How long
16 weeks
Who has a stake
No stake declared
No conflicts of interest disclosed.
Journal
Medicine, 2025
Source
PubMed record 39960921. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • •Medium size: 60 people.
  • •Lasted 16 weeks.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: wrinkles and skin aging.
  • ✓No competing interests declared.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: wrinkles and skin aging

    6

    5 benefit, 1 mixed

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  4. Population studies

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

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

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does red light therapy work for skin?”

Maybe a little; trials are small.

Confidence: low. Based on 7 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 5 papers on the same step: 4 benefit, 1 mixed. This one found benefit. It agrees with most of them.

Other papers on the same step

See all 7 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 3 fields after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.