{"title":"可见光 LED 治疗皮肤病的研究和报告方法问题","authors":"David Robert Grimes","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.12.24313560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The advent of mass-market Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has seen considerable interest in potential dermatological applications of LED light photobiomodulation (PBM) for a range of conditions, with a thriving market for direct-to-consumer LED treatments, including red light, blue light, and yellow light wavelengths. Evidence of efficacy for many conditions is however decidedly mixed, with starkly different outcomes reported by different authors. Due to the wide range of irradiances and wavelengths used, interpretation, comparison, and even efficacy evaluation is often impossible or prohibitive, impeding evidence synthesis. This work establishes a framework for objectively cross-comparing patient dose in terms of fluence, and a model for contrasting received dose to typical solar dose at ground level to facilitate interpretation of results and evidence synthesis. This allowes direct cross-comparison of patient skin fluence from LED PMB treatments under different regimes, and a means for evidence synthesis. This was applied to LED PMB data from 27 clinical trials to examine fluences and patient-equivalent solar exposure from LED light-sources for dermatological conditions, including acne vulgaris, wrinkle-reduction, wound-healing, psoriasis severity, and erythemal index. The results of this analysis suggest that fluences, wavelengths, and solar exposure equivalent differed by orders of magnitude in he studies analysed, with effective doses often comparable to typical daily solar exposure. Better dose quantification and plausible biological justification for various wavelengths and fluences are imperative if LED therapy studies for dermatology are to be informative and research replicability improved.","PeriodicalId":501385,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Dermatology","volume":"102 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological issues in visible LED therapy dermatological research and reporting\",\"authors\":\"David Robert Grimes\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.09.12.24313560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The advent of mass-market Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has seen considerable interest in potential dermatological applications of LED light photobiomodulation (PBM) for a range of conditions, with a thriving market for direct-to-consumer LED treatments, including red light, blue light, and yellow light wavelengths. Evidence of efficacy for many conditions is however decidedly mixed, with starkly different outcomes reported by different authors. Due to the wide range of irradiances and wavelengths used, interpretation, comparison, and even efficacy evaluation is often impossible or prohibitive, impeding evidence synthesis. This work establishes a framework for objectively cross-comparing patient dose in terms of fluence, and a model for contrasting received dose to typical solar dose at ground level to facilitate interpretation of results and evidence synthesis. This allowes direct cross-comparison of patient skin fluence from LED PMB treatments under different regimes, and a means for evidence synthesis. This was applied to LED PMB data from 27 clinical trials to examine fluences and patient-equivalent solar exposure from LED light-sources for dermatological conditions, including acne vulgaris, wrinkle-reduction, wound-healing, psoriasis severity, and erythemal index. The results of this analysis suggest that fluences, wavelengths, and solar exposure equivalent differed by orders of magnitude in he studies analysed, with effective doses often comparable to typical daily solar exposure. Better dose quantification and plausible biological justification for various wavelengths and fluences are imperative if LED therapy studies for dermatology are to be informative and research replicability improved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Dermatology\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.12.24313560\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.12.24313560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
随着发光二极管(LED)进入大众市场,人们对 LED 光生物调节(PBM)在皮肤病领域的潜在应用产生了浓厚的兴趣,包括红光、蓝光和黄光波长在内的直接面向消费者的 LED 治疗市场蓬勃发展。然而,许多病症的疗效证据明显参差不齐,不同作者报告的结果也截然不同。由于所使用的辐照度和波长范围很广,解释、比较甚至疗效评估通常都是不可能的或令人望而却步的,从而阻碍了证据的综合。这项工作建立了一个以通量为单位对患者剂量进行客观交叉比较的框架,以及一个将接收到的剂量与地面典型太阳剂量进行对比的模型,以方便对结果进行解释和证据综合。这样就可以直接交叉比较不同制度下 LED PMB 治疗产生的患者皮肤通量,并提供证据综合的方法。我们将这一方法应用于 27 项临床试验的 LED PMB 数据,以检查 LED 光源治疗皮肤病(包括寻常痤疮、除皱、伤口愈合、牛皮癣严重程度和红斑指数)的通量和患者等效太阳照射。这项分析的结果表明,在所分析的研究中,流度、波长和太阳照射当量相差几个数量级,有效剂量通常与典型的日常太阳照射相当。如果要使皮肤病学的 LED 治疗研究具有参考价值并提高研究的可复制性,就必须对各种波长和荧光进行更好的剂量量化和合理的生物学论证。
Methodological issues in visible LED therapy dermatological research and reporting
The advent of mass-market Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has seen considerable interest in potential dermatological applications of LED light photobiomodulation (PBM) for a range of conditions, with a thriving market for direct-to-consumer LED treatments, including red light, blue light, and yellow light wavelengths. Evidence of efficacy for many conditions is however decidedly mixed, with starkly different outcomes reported by different authors. Due to the wide range of irradiances and wavelengths used, interpretation, comparison, and even efficacy evaluation is often impossible or prohibitive, impeding evidence synthesis. This work establishes a framework for objectively cross-comparing patient dose in terms of fluence, and a model for contrasting received dose to typical solar dose at ground level to facilitate interpretation of results and evidence synthesis. This allowes direct cross-comparison of patient skin fluence from LED PMB treatments under different regimes, and a means for evidence synthesis. This was applied to LED PMB data from 27 clinical trials to examine fluences and patient-equivalent solar exposure from LED light-sources for dermatological conditions, including acne vulgaris, wrinkle-reduction, wound-healing, psoriasis severity, and erythemal index. The results of this analysis suggest that fluences, wavelengths, and solar exposure equivalent differed by orders of magnitude in he studies analysed, with effective doses often comparable to typical daily solar exposure. Better dose quantification and plausible biological justification for various wavelengths and fluences are imperative if LED therapy studies for dermatology are to be informative and research replicability improved.