Red and near-infrared light therapy — often described in research as photobiomodulation or low-level light therapy — has been studied for decades. This page brings together peer-reviewed clinical trials, systematic reviews and research papers so you can explore the evidence for yourself.
Visible red wavelengths around 630–660nm are among the most commonly researched ranges for skin-focused photobiomodulation.
Near-infrared wavelengths such as 830–850nm are widely studied because they penetrate more deeply than visible red light.
Longer wavelengths around 1064–1072nm are an emerging area of research, with a smaller but growing body of published evidence.
These studies investigated red light or red/near-infrared photobiomodulation in relation to visible signs of skin ageing, texture and photodamage.
Alexander Wunsch & Karsten Matuschka, 2014. A controlled study examining red and near-infrared light treatment and changes in skin appearance and collagen density.
Read the full paper ↗Virginie Couturaud, Marie Le Fur, Michele Pelletier & Frederic Granotier, 2023. A clinical study using a red LED mask at approximately 630nm over three months.
Read the full paper ↗Robert A. Weiss, David H. McDaniel, Roy G. Geronemus & Margaret A. Weiss, 2005. Evaluated a non-thermal LED array in subjects with photoaged skin.
View on PubMed ↗The combination of visible red light and near-infrared light has been used in a number of clinical studies investigating photodamaged or ageing skin.
David J. Goldberg, Snehal Amin, Bruce A. Russell, Robert Phelps, Norma Kellett & Laurence A. Reilly, 2006. Thirty-six subjects received nine treatments over five weeks; the study reported statistically significant improvement in wrinkles and changes in collagen fibres.
View on PubMed ↗Seung Yoon Lee and colleagues, 2007. A controlled study of 76 patients investigating clinical, histological and biochemical changes following LED phototherapy.
View on PubMed ↗Longer near-infrared wavelengths around 1072nm have a smaller research base than conventional red and 830–850nm NIR, but there are peer-reviewed studies and reviews examining their use.
Richard J. Stirling & James D. Haslam, 2007. A randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study examining daily 1072nm light around the eyes over several weeks.
View on PubMed ↗Jessica Mineroff, Evan Austin & Jared Jagdeo, 2023. A review of the dermatological literature relating to 1072nm near-infrared photobiomodulation.
View on PubMed ↗Jessica Mineroff and colleagues, 2023. Assessed a home-use facial LED mask combining red and near-infrared wavelengths over six weeks.
View on PubMed ↗Individual trials are useful, but systematic reviews are especially valuable because they assess findings across multiple studies and highlight limitations in the evidence.
Jared Jagdeo and colleagues, 2018. Reviewed 31 randomized controlled trials of LED treatments in dermatology and noted both encouraging results and important limitations including small sample sizes and varied treatment parameters.
Read the full review ↗Le Thi Nhu Ngoc, Ju-Young Moon & Young-Chul Lee, 2023. A systematic review and meta-analysis examining dermatological and aesthetic applications of LED therapy.
View on PubMed ↗2024 review covering mechanisms, clinical applications, recent trials and developments in photobiomodulation and LED therapy in dermatology.
Read the full review ↗R. Glen Calderhead & David B. Vasily, 2016. A literature review discussing LED phototherapy across a range of dermatological and aesthetic applications.
Read the full review ↗Ying-Ying Huang, Aaron C-H Chen, James D Carroll & Michael R Hamblin, 2009. Explains why photobiomodulation is dose-dependent and why more light is not necessarily better.
Read the full review ↗Ying-Ying Huang, Sulbha K. Sharma, James Carroll & Michael R. Hamblin, 2011. Follow-up review examining the evidence for biphasic dose-response effects in low-level light therapy.
Read the full review ↗R. Glen Calderhead & David B. Vasily, 2016. Reviews the use of LED-based low-level light therapy in facial ageing and the biological mechanisms proposed in the literature.
View on PubMed ↗Two devices using a similar wavelength may deliver very different doses. Irradiance, distance, exposure time, pulse pattern and treatment frequency can all affect the amount of light reaching the tissue.
The studies above demonstrate that photobiomodulation is a genuine area of scientific and clinical research. They should not be interpreted as proof that any specific consumer device will reproduce the exact outcomes reported in a separate clinical study.
Some papers are randomized controlled trials, while others are smaller clinical studies or narrative reviews. Systematic reviews repeatedly note variation between protocols and the need for further high-quality research.
Most skin-focused studies involve repeated treatments over several weeks. Red light therapy is generally researched as a course of treatment rather than a one-off exposure.
Red light therapy is not simply an internet wellness trend. Photobiomodulation has a substantial peer-reviewed research literature, including randomized trials, clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. At the same time, the science is nuanced: results depend on the wavelength, dose, device and treatment protocol, and not every claimed benefit is supported equally well.
Our aim is to make it easy for you to read the underlying research and make an informed decision rather than relying on exaggerated claims.
Great Starter Panel
Great premium red light panel
Higher Brightness LED Panel
6 LED Wavelengths
Ultimate Red Light Therapy
