Red Light Therapy Sham Trials: Placebo Effect and Real Gains

Last updated: April 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Consult a qualified healthcare provider before starting any treatment.

Affiliate Disclosure: We may earn a commission when you purchase through our links. This does not affect our editorial independence.

Quick Answer

Whole-body photobiomodulation (PBM) may improve sleep quality but showed no benefits for exercise recovery or performance in a 2025 systematic review of five studies involving 105 participants.
Localized PBM reduced chronic pain significantly, particularly in fibromyalgia and neuropathy, across 14 studies included in a 2026 review.
For age-related macular degeneration (AMD), PBM remains a controversial approach, with ongoing debate about its efficacy and clinical relevance.
The incidence of adverse events with PBM for chronic pain was low, reinforcing its safety profile according to a 2026 systematic review.

Red light therapy, also known as photobiomodulation (PBM), has gained attention for its potential health benefits, but understanding where real gains occur versus where the placebo effect might influence perceptions is crucial. Recent scientific reviews offer clarity on specific applications. A 2025 systematic review of five studies involving 105 physically active participants found that while whole-body PBM might improve sleep quality, it showed no evidence of benefits for exercise recovery or performance [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. In contrast, a 2026 systematic review of 14 studies indicated that PBM significantly reduced chronic pain, particularly in conditions like fibromyalgia and neuropathy [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. For age-related macular degeneration (AMD), PBM remains a controversial approach, with its efficacy and clinical relevance still under debate as of a 2024 review [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/]. Evaluating PBM’s true impact requires careful examination of randomized controlled trials that compare active treatment to a sham or placebo.

What is the Placebo Effect in Red Light Therapy Trials?

The placebo effect refers to a therapeutic benefit that arises from a patient's belief in a treatment rather than from the treatment's specific physiological effects. In red light therapy trials, understanding the placebo effect is critical for scientists to accurately determine if the observed benefits are truly due to the light itself or simply the expectation of improvement. Clinical trials often employ sophisticated designs to separate these influences, ensuring that any reported efficacy is genuinely attributable to the photobiomodulation.

Designing Studies to Account for Placebo

Researchers design clinical trials with specific controls to isolate the actual effects of an intervention. The gold standard often involves comparing an active treatment to a "sham" or placebo. A sham treatment is designed to mimic the real therapy in every possible way, except for the active component. For example, in a PBM study, a sham device might look identical to the active device, produce the same sounds or sensations (like warmth), but emit no therapeutic light or only light at a non-therapeutic wavelength or intensity. This method helps researchers understand if observed benefits, such as pain reduction or improved function, are due to the therapy itself or the patient's psychological response to receiving treatment.

When participants do not know if they are receiving the real treatment or the sham, it is called a "blinded" study. If both the participants and the researchers administering the treatment are unaware, it is a "double-blinded" study, which further reduces bias. This rigorous approach is essential because the human mind has a powerful capacity to influence physical symptoms. If a patient believes a treatment will work, they may genuinely feel better, even if the treatment itself has no biological effect. Therefore, by using sham controls, scientists can differentiate between the subjective improvements caused by expectation and the objective changes caused by the light therapy. Without such controls, it would be difficult to claim that PBM is genuinely effective for a given condition, rather than simply harnessing the power of belief.

The Role of Expectation in Outcomes

Patient expectation plays a significant role in the placebo effect. When individuals enroll in a clinical trial or seek treatment, they often do so with hope for improvement. This hope can trigger physiological responses, such as the release of endorphins, which can alleviate pain, or changes in brain activity associated with mood and well-being. These internal responses can lead to measurable improvements in symptoms, even when the treatment itself is inert. For instance, a patient might report less pain after a sham PBM session simply because they expect to feel better.

Researchers must account for these psychological factors to provide concrete, evidence-based conclusions about PBM's efficacy. If a study finds that both the active PBM group and the sham group experience similar levels of improvement, it suggests that the observed benefits are largely due to the placebo effect. However, if the active PBM group shows significantly greater improvement than the sham group, it provides strong evidence that the PBM itself is having a direct therapeutic effect beyond expectation. This distinction is vital for patients and practitioners alike, ensuring that decisions about treatment are based on true scientific efficacy rather than perceived benefits driven by hope alone. The careful design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with sham comparisons is the primary tool scientists use to make this critical differentiation.

Does Whole-Body Red Light Therapy Improve Exercise Performance?

Whole-body red light therapy, or whole-body photobiomodulation (PBM), has been explored as a method to enhance exercise performance and recovery, but current research suggests it may not offer significant benefits in these areas. While some studies point to improvements in sleep quality, a comprehensive systematic review found no direct evidence of whole-body PBM boosting athletic performance or aiding muscle recovery. This highlights a distinction between localized and systemic applications of PBM, as localized treatments have shown different outcomes.

Analysis of Whole-Body PBM for Exercise

A 2025 systematic review specifically evaluated the efficacy of whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. This review systematically searched major scientific databases, including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and Google Scholar. The initial screening process identified 193 potential studies. However, after careful review, only five studies met the strict inclusion criteria for the analysis. These five studies collectively involved a total of 105 physically active participants, representing both sexes and engaging in various exercise modalities. The small number of included studies and participants underscores the limited research specifically focusing on whole-body PBM for these applications.

The researchers aimed to synthesize the evidence qualitatively, comparing findings to the established effects observed with localized PBM, which has been studied more extensively. The systematic review found that two of the five identified studies reported an improvement in sleep quality among participants who used whole-body PBM. This improvement was determined through both subjective questionnaires, where participants self-reported better sleep, and objective measurements from commercial sleep trackers. Additionally, these two studies noted higher serum melatonin levels, a hormone crucial for regulating sleep-wake cycles, and a lower nocturnal heart rate in participants undergoing whole-body PBM. These findings suggest a potential role for whole-body PBM in promoting relaxation and better sleep patterns.

Lack of Evidence for Performance and Recovery

Despite the promising findings related to sleep quality, the 2025 systematic review concluded that none of the five studies identified reported any benefit of whole-body PBM on biomarkers of fatigue or exercise performance [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. This means that objective measures, such as improvements in strength, endurance, power output, or reductions in physiological markers of muscle damage and fatigue (like lactate levels or creatine kinase), were not observed. The absence of such findings indicates that while whole-body PBM might contribute to an overall sense of well-being through better sleep, it does not directly translate to enhanced physical capabilities during exercise or faster recovery from strenuous activity.

The conclusion drawn by Mario Álvarez-Martínez et al. in Lasers Med Sci. 2025, states directly: "Whole-body PBM may improve sleep quality but shows no evidence of benefits for exercise recovery or performance" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. This statement highlights a significant discrepancy between localized and whole-body PBM applications. Localized PBM, which targets specific muscles or areas of the body, has a more established body of evidence suggesting benefits for exercise performance and recovery. The review calls for further research to resolve these discrepancies and to understand why the effects observed with localized PBM do not seem to extend to whole-body applications in the context of exercise. This could be due to differences in dosage, penetration depth, treatment protocols, or the physiological mechanisms involved when light is applied to a broader area versus a concentrated one. For more details, see 2024 Photobiomodulation and AMD Review.

Can Red Light Therapy Help with Chronic Pain?

Red light therapy, or photobiomodulation (PBM), shows promise as a therapeutic option for managing chronic pain. A recent systematic review indicates that PBM can significantly reduce pain intensity in various chronic conditions, including fibromyalgia and neuropathies. Beyond just pain relief, some studies also report improvements in functional abilities and overall quality of life for individuals suffering from persistent pain. This makes PBM a compelling alternative or complementary treatment, especially given its favorable safety profile.

PBM's Efficacy in Pain Reduction

A 2026 systematic review provided a critical assessment of the available literature on PBM for chronic pain conditions [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. The review included articles published between September 2015 and September 2025, drawing from extensive searches across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and MEDLINE databases. The researchers specifically looked for randomized clinical trials that compared PBM protocols against placebo, sham treatments, or conventional care. The primary outcome investigated was pain intensity, with secondary outcomes including functional improvements, quality of life, and the occurrence of adverse events.

The review ultimately included fourteen studies, covering a diverse range of chronic pain populations. These included individuals diagnosed with fibromyalgia, various peripheral neuropathies, orofacial pain, and different types of musculoskeletal pain. The findings from this systematic review were largely positive, with most trials demonstrating a significant reduction in pain with PBM. This pain relief was particularly notable in patients suffering from fibromyalgia and those with neuropathic pain conditions. The ability of PBM to reduce pain intensity across such varied conditions suggests a broad applicability for this therapeutic modality. As Luciano Maia Alves Ferreira et al. stated in their 2026 publication, "PBM stands out as a promising therapeutic alternative for the management of chronic pain, but there is still controversy regarding its efficacy and safety, given the diversity of protocols and populations evaluated" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. Despite some ongoing debate, the evidence for pain reduction is compelling.

Functional Gains and Safety Profile

Beyond merely reducing pain, the 2026 systematic review also highlighted other significant benefits of PBM in chronic pain management. In some of the included studies, researchers observed functional gains, meaning patients experienced improvements in their ability to perform daily activities or move more freely. Additionally, an improved quality of life was reported by some participants, indicating that PBM's effects extended beyond just physical symptoms to impact overall well-being. These broader benefits are crucial for individuals living with chronic pain, as the condition often severely limits daily functioning and diminishes life satisfaction.

The safety profile of PBM for chronic pain was also a key finding of the review. The incidence of adverse events reported across the fourteen studies was consistently low [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. This reinforces the method's safety, making it an attractive option, especially when compared to pharmacological treatments that often come with a range of side effects. This low risk of adverse events is a significant advantage for PBM, particularly for chronic conditions where long-term treatment is often necessary. However, the review also acknowledged a limitation: the heterogeneity of technical parameters across the various studies. This diversity in light dosages, wavelengths, treatment durations, and application methods compromises the standardization of results, making it challenging to establish universally optimal protocols. Despite these variations, the consistent trend of pain reduction and improved function, coupled with a strong safety record, positions PBM as a valuable tool in the comprehensive management of chronic pain.

Is Red Light Therapy Effective for Fibromyalgia?

Red light therapy, specifically low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM), has shown promising results in managing fibromyalgia, a chronic pain condition. Multiple studies, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, indicate that PBM can significantly reduce pain and improve functional outcomes for individuals with fibromyalgia. This evidence suggests that PBM could be a valuable non-pharmacological option for this complex condition.

Early and Recent Findings on Fibromyalgia

Research into the efficacy of low-level laser therapy for fibromyalgia dates back several years. As early as 2002, a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the effects of low power laser therapy in fibromyalgia patients. This study, published in Lasers Med Sci., reported positive findings, indicating the efficacy of this treatment modality for reducing symptoms associated with fibromyalgia [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11845369/]. The use of a placebo control in this early trial was crucial, as it helped to differentiate the true effects of the laser therapy from any potential placebo response. The positive outcomes from such foundational studies laid the groundwork for further investigation into PBM for fibromyalgia.

More recently, a 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis specifically focused on low-level laser therapy for fibromyalgia [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31151332/]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are powerful tools in medical research because they synthesize evidence from multiple studies, providing a more robust and comprehensive understanding of a treatment's effectiveness. While the specific findings of the 2019 review are not detailed here, its existence indicates a continued interest and growing body of evidence supporting PBM's role in fibromyalgia management. These reviews help to consolidate disparate research findings, offering clearer guidance for clinicians and patients.

Ongoing Clinical Research

The interest in PBM for fibromyalgia continues, with ongoing clinical trials further exploring its potential. For example, ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world, lists a study identified as NCT02948634, titled "Low-level Laser Therapy in Patients With Chronic Fibromyalgia" [https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02948634]. This registration highlights that researchers are actively investigating the effects of PBM in this patient population, using rigorous study designs to gather more definitive evidence. Such trials often assess various outcomes, including pain intensity, tender point count, fatigue levels, sleep quality, and overall functional status.

The inclusion of fibromyalgia in the 2026 systematic review on chronic pain further solidifies its position as a condition that may benefit from PBM. That review, which included fourteen studies covering populations with various chronic pain conditions, explicitly noted that "Most trials demonstrated significant pain reduction with PBM, particularly in fibromyalgia and neuropathy" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. This consistent finding across multiple studies and reviews suggests that PBM is a viable therapeutic option for reducing the widespread pain characteristic of fibromyalgia. The low incidence of adverse events reported in these studies also reinforces PBM as a safe treatment alternative, making it an appealing option for patients seeking non-pharmacological approaches to manage their symptoms.

What About Red Light Therapy for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)?

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision loss, and photobiomodulation (PBM) has emerged as a controversial approach for its management. While PBM aims to halt or reverse the progression of dry AMD by modulating mitochondrial activity, its overall efficacy and clinical relevance are still subjects of active debate within the medical community. A recent systematic review highlights the ongoing uncertainty surrounding PBM's role in treating this complex eye condition. For more details, see 2025 Whole-Body PBM Systematic Review.

PBM as a Controversial Approach for AMD

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) represents a significant public health challenge, being a primary cause of severe vision loss, particularly among older adults. The condition affects the macula, the central part of the retina responsible for sharp, detailed vision. Dry AMD, the more common form, involves the thinning of the macula and the formation of drusen, yellowish deposits under the retina. Given the lack of highly effective treatments for dry AMD, researchers are constantly exploring new therapeutic avenues. Photobiomodulation (PBM) has been proposed as one such approach. The theory behind PBM for AMD involves its ability to modulate mitochondrial activity within retinal cells. Mitochondria are often referred to as the "powerhouses" of cells, and their dysfunction is implicated in many age-related diseases, including AMD. By enhancing mitochondrial function, PBM aims to improve cellular health and potentially slow or even reverse the progression of macular degeneration.

However, the application of PBM for AMD remains controversial. The debate stems from varying results in studies, inconsistencies in treatment protocols, and questions regarding the long-term clinical benefits. Despite the theoretical promise of PBM in influencing cellular metabolism, robust and conclusive evidence demonstrating its widespread clinical utility has been elusive. This controversy underscores the need for high-quality research to definitively establish PBM's place in AMD management.

Systematic Review Findings on AMD Efficacy

To address the ongoing debate, a 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) specifically investigated PBM efficacy in age-related macular degeneration [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/]. This comprehensive review systematically searched major medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The researchers focused on RCTs that directly compared PBM interventions against a sham treatment in patients diagnosed with dry AMD. The rigorous methodology involved trial sequential analysis (TSA) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations. These advanced statistical techniques are used to assess both the statistical significance and the practical, real-world clinical importance of the observed effects.

Despite the thorough analysis, the background section of the review explicitly states, "However, the efficacy and clinical relevance of PBM as a potential approach for managing dry AMD remain debated" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/]. This statement from Tiago N O Rassi et al. in Int J Retina Vitreous. 2024, indicates that even after reviewing the existing randomized controlled trials, a definitive conclusion on PBM's effectiveness for AMD could not be reached. The lack of clear consensus suggests that while some studies might show positive trends, these are not consistent or robust enough to firmly establish PBM as a standard treatment. Factors contributing to this ongoing debate likely include variations in study populations, PBM device parameters (such as wavelength, intensity, and duration of treatment), and outcome measures. Until more conclusive evidence emerges, PBM for AMD should be considered an experimental or complementary approach, rather than a definitively proven treatment.

How Do We Understand Red Light Therapy Research?

Understanding red light therapy (PBM) research requires a critical eye for study design and statistical analysis. Researchers use specific methodologies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PBM to a sham, to isolate the true effects of the therapy. Advanced statistical tools help determine if observed benefits are not only statistically significant but also clinically meaningful, ensuring that findings have real-world impact for patients.

The Importance of Rigorous Study Design

When we look at PBM studies, the quality of the study design is paramount. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in clinical research because they minimize bias and provide the most reliable evidence of cause and effect. In an RCT, participants are randomly assigned to either receive the active PBM treatment or a control condition, often a "sham" treatment. A sham treatment mimics the PBM device without delivering therapeutic light, helping to account for the placebo effect. This comparison allows researchers to determine if any observed benefits are truly due to the light therapy itself, rather than patient expectation or other confounding factors. For example, the 2024 systematic review on PBM for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) specifically included RCTs that compared PBM versus a sham in patients with dry AMD [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/]. This focus on high-quality comparative studies is essential for drawing accurate conclusions about PBM's efficacy.

Beyond randomization and sham controls, other aspects of study design are crucial. Blinding, where participants and/or researchers are unaware of who is receiving which treatment, further reduces bias. The size of the study population also matters; larger studies generally provide more robust and generalizable results. For instance, the 2025 systematic review on whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery identified five studies with a total of 105 physically active participants [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. While this number allowed for some conclusions, the relatively small sample size across a limited number of studies suggests the need for more extensive research to confirm findings. By scrutinizing these design elements, we can better assess the reliability and validity of PBM research.

Interpreting Statistical and Clinical Significance

Researchers employ various statistical methods to interpret the data collected in PBM trials. Two important tools mentioned in the research are trial sequential analysis (TSA) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations. TSA is a statistical method used in meta-analyses to determine if enough data has been accumulated to reach a reliable conclusion, preventing premature declarations of efficacy or futility. This helps to overcome issues related to underpowered studies or spurious findings. For example, the 2024 review on PBM for AMD utilized TSA to assess statistical significance, ensuring that their findings were robust [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/].

MCID, on the other hand, focuses on clinical significance. While a statistical difference might be found between a PBM group and a control group, this difference may not be large enough to be meaningful to a patient in their daily life. MCID helps to define the smallest change in an outcome measure that patients perceive as beneficial. By including MCID calculations, researchers can determine if the observed benefits of PBM are not just statistically present, but also practically relevant for patients. This is particularly important for conditions like chronic pain, where a slight reduction in pain might be statistically significant but not enough to improve a patient's quality of life substantially.

The 2026 systematic review on PBM in chronic pain, which included fourteen studies, noted that while "Most trials demonstrated significant pain reduction with PBM," the "heterogeneity of technical parameters compromises the standardization of results" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. This "heterogeneity" refers to the wide variations in the specific PBM devices, wavelengths, power densities, treatment durations, and number of sessions used across different studies. Such variations make it challenging to compare results directly and to establish optimal treatment protocols. Even when benefits are observed, the lack of standardized parameters means that translating research findings into consistent clinical practice can be difficult. Therefore, while PBM shows promise for certain conditions, ongoing research is needed to refine treatment protocols and ensure consistent, clinically meaningful outcomes. For more details, see 2026 Chronic Pain PBM Review.

How Can Red Light Therapy Be Used Safely?

Red light therapy (photobiomodulation or PBM) is generally considered safe when used appropriately, particularly given its low incidence of adverse events reported in clinical trials. However, understanding the specific applications where its safety has been established and adhering to recommended protocols are key to maximizing benefits while minimizing any potential risks. Research consistently highlights PBM's safety, especially for conditions like chronic pain, but proper guidance is always recommended.

Evidence of PBM's Safety Profile

The safety of red light therapy is a critical aspect when considering its use for any health condition. Current research suggests that PBM has a favorable safety profile across various applications. For instance, a 2026 systematic review that investigated PBM for chronic pain management, which included fourteen studies, specifically reported a low incidence of adverse events [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. This finding is significant because chronic pain conditions often require ongoing treatment, and a therapy with minimal side effects is highly desirable. The review covered diverse pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, peripheral neuropathies, orofacial pain, and musculoskeletal pain, and in all these contexts, PBM demonstrated a strong safety record. The fact that the method’s safety was reinforced in this comprehensive review provides reassurance for both practitioners and patients considering PBM as a therapeutic option.

Similarly, other systematic reviews, even those that found limited efficacy for specific applications, have not typically highlighted significant safety concerns. For example, the 2025 systematic review on whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery, while concluding no benefits for performance, did not report any major adverse events among the 105 physically active participants across five studies [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. This consistent pattern of low adverse event rates across different PBM applications and study populations suggests that PBM is generally well-tolerated. The non-invasive nature of PBM, which involves irradiating a local area of the skin with red and near-infrared light from lasers or LEDs, contributes to its benign safety profile compared to more invasive medical procedures or pharmacological interventions.

Considerations for Safe Application

While PBM is largely safe, responsible application is paramount. The low incidence of adverse events noted in research pertains to controlled clinical settings where devices are typically regulated and protocols are carefully followed. When using PBM devices, whether in a professional studio or at home, it is important to adhere to the manufacturer's instructions and any guidance from healthcare professionals. This includes proper eye protection, especially when using devices with higher power outputs or when light is directed near the face. Although PBM is generally considered safe, direct exposure to intense light, particularly near the eyes, could potentially cause discomfort or harm if appropriate precautions are not taken.

Furthermore, the "heterogeneity of technical parameters" across various studies, as highlighted in the 2026 chronic pain review, means that not all PBM devices or treatment protocols are identical [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. This variation can include differences in wavelength (red vs. near-infrared), power density (irradiance), total energy delivered (fluence), pulse settings, and treatment duration. While the overall safety remains high, using devices that are designed for specific therapeutic purposes and following established guidelines for those purposes is advisable. For instance, devices intended for skin rejuvenation might have different parameters than those used for deep tissue pain. Consulting with a qualified healthcare provider can help individuals choose appropriate PBM devices and protocols for their specific needs, ensuring that the therapy is applied safely and effectively. This personalized guidance is crucial for navigating the diverse landscape of PBM technologies and ensuring optimal outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between local and whole-body PBM?

Local photobiomodulation (PBM) targets specific areas of the body, such as a painful joint or a particular muscle, using red or near-infrared light from lasers or LEDs. Whole-body PBM, on the other hand, involves exposing the entire body to red and near-infrared light. While localized PBM has shown benefits for exercise performance and recovery in some studies, a 2025 systematic review of five studies with 105 participants found no evidence of whole-body PBM improving exercise recovery or performance [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/]. However, the same review noted that whole-body PBM may improve sleep quality.

How does a 'sham' treatment work in PBM studies?

A 'sham' treatment in PBM studies acts as a placebo control. It mimics the active PBM treatment in every possible way—looking identical, producing similar sounds or sensations—but without delivering the therapeutic light or using non-therapeutic light parameters. This allows researchers to distinguish between the actual physiological effects of PBM and the psychological effects (placebo effect) that arise from a patient's expectation of treatment. For example, in a 2024 review on PBM for age-related macular degeneration, randomized controlled trials comparing PBM versus a sham were analyzed to assess efficacy [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/].

Are there any risks or adverse effects with PBM?

Photobiomodulation (PBM) is generally considered to have a low incidence of adverse events. A 2026 systematic review on PBM for chronic pain, which included fourteen studies, specifically highlighted the low occurrence of side effects, reinforcing the method's safety profile [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. This suggests that PBM is a relatively safe therapeutic option for many conditions. However, it's always important to follow device instructions and consult a healthcare provider for proper guidance, especially regarding eye protection.

Why is PBM for AMD considered controversial?

PBM for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is considered controversial because its efficacy and clinical relevance remain debated despite research efforts. While PBM aims to modulate mitochondrial activity to slow or reverse dry AMD progression, a 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials concluded that the overall effectiveness and real-world clinical importance of PBM for dry AMD are still under discussion [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39148091/]. This ongoing debate stems from inconsistencies in study results and treatment protocols.

What specific pain conditions benefit most from PBM?

According to a 2026 systematic review of fourteen studies, PBM demonstrated significant pain reduction across several chronic pain conditions. The review specifically noted strong benefits for fibromyalgia and peripheral neuropathies [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41710353/]. Additionally, improvements were observed in orofacial pain and various musculoskeletal pain conditions. The review also reported functional gains and improved quality of life in some of these patient populations.