This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The use in dermatology of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) continues to be surrounded by controversy. This is due mainly to poor knowledge of the physicochemical phases of a wide range of devices that are difficult to compare to one another, and also to divergences between irrefutable published evidence either at the level of in vitro studies or at the cellular level, and discordant clinical results in a variety of different indications: rejuvenation, acne, wound healing, leg ulcers, and cutaneous inflammatory or autoimmune processes. Therapeutic LEDs can emit wavelengths ranging from the ultraviolet, through visible light, to the near infrared (247-1300 nm), but only certain bands have so far demonstrated any real value. We feel certain that if this article remains factual, then readers will have a different, or at least more nuanced, opinion concerning the use of such LED devices in dermatology.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noé et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: