Red-light therapy for short-sightedness: what Malaysian parents should know

Red-light therapy for short-sightedness is now advertised by eye clinics in Malaysia, often described as a few minutes a day with a small device at home. Parents are right to ask whether it is safe, and whether it works. Early in 2026 a laboratory study in JAMA Ophthalmology gave that question a sharper edge.

This article does not tell you to buy it or to avoid it. It sets out what the studies show, what they do not show yet, and what to ask before paying for anything. No brand or clinic is named here, on purpose.

What is red-light therapy for short-sightedness, and where is it sold?

Repeated low-level red-light therapy is a short daily session in which a child looks at a red light held close to the eye. The aim is to slow the growth of the eyeball, which is what makes a child more short-sighted (myopia, rabun jauh) over the years.

Some clinics in Malaysia offer it, and their websites describe sessions of about three minutes, twice a day, five days a week, for children from age three. Some use the words "clinically proven". The device itself is often used at home.

Not every device is the same. Some use a laser, and others use a light-emitting diode (LED) that spreads the light more gently. That difference turns out to matter, and it comes up again below.

Does red-light therapy slow my child's short-sightedness?

In trials, yes, on average. A 2026 review from Hong Kong reports that randomised trials consistently show slower eye growth, and slower onset and progression of myopia, in children using red light.

Two cautions go with that. The review says its network comparisons put red light ahead of the established treatments, but a network comparison joins up separate trials rather than testing treatments head to head. And one of its authors declares a patent and a company interest in a red-light device. That does not make the findings wrong. It is a reason to read the good news alongside the independent studies rather than instead of them.

Slowing is also not reversing. A child who uses red light still needs glasses to see clearly, and still needs regular eye checks.

What did the 2026 safety study on the devices find?

It found that two of the four devices reach a safety limit far sooner than the recommended session length. Researchers at the University of Houston measured four commercially sold devices in a laboratory, using the American standards that set safe limits for looking into a light source. No child took part.

The recommended session is 180 seconds. Two laser-based devices reached the standard's safety limit in 2.8 and 1.4 seconds, for the widest pupil the researchers modelled. A third laser device reached it at 253 seconds or longer. The LED-based device took more than 22,000 seconds. The authors also point to emerging reports of retinal damage, and to China reclassifying red laser devices as a higher-risk class, and they call for independent safety testing before these devices are used widely in children.

What the study does not say matters as much. It measured light output on a bench. It did not measure harm in children, and it cannot tell you how any particular device sold near you behaves.

So is it safe for my child's eyes?

The honest answer is that the short-term picture looks reassuring, and the long-term picture is not known. A 2024 systematic review pooled 20 studies covering 2,380 children aged 3 to 18, with a median treatment length of nine months and a longest of 24. It found no permanent loss of vision. Two case reports described the same child, whose sight dipped and whose retinal scan changed, and it recovered completely four months after stopping. A brief afterimage after a session was the commonest symptom, gone within six minutes in the studies that reported it.

Against that, a 2025 study of 99 children with myopia, about half of them using red light, found lower density of cone cells (the light-sensing cells that carry colour and fine detail) near the centre of the retina in children who had used it for at least a year, along with some subtle retinal changes. It was a retrospective study, so it shows an association, not a cause. Its authors call for further research on longer-term safety.

The 2026 review adds that uncertainty remains about the meaning of some retinal scan changes and about long-term monitoring, dose and device design. Both reviews include an author with a declared company interest in red light, which is why the laboratory study and the cohort study matter as well.

How does it compare with drops, special lenses and time outdoors?

It has the same goal as the others, slowing how fast the eye grows, and the open long-term questions above are what to weigh against the benefit. What the atropine numbers say is worth reading before you compare prices, and the other options are laid out in slowing myopia down with drops, lenses and honest numbers.

Time outdoors costs nothing and has a good record for helping children not become short-sighted in the first place, though less for slowing a child who already is. The evidence on outdoor time is smaller than parents are usually told, and still worth using.

Because the trials differ in design, the evidence cannot show that one option beats another for your child. That decision belongs at an examination, not on a comparison chart.

What should I ask before I pay for it?

Ask questions that a good clinic will answer easily. Which device is it, and is it laser or LED? What has been measured on that exact device, and by someone independent of the company? Is a retinal scan taken before the first session and again during treatment, and is a doctor reading it? Who sets and checks the session length, and does the device stop itself?

The 2024 review itself says photographs of the back of the eye and retinal scans, before and during treatment, are needed to pick up side effects, along with home checks of vision and of how long an afterimage lasts. A package with no scans and no follow-up is a package worth pausing on.

Ask what you are committing to: how many months, what it costs in total, and what happens if your child cannot keep up the schedule. And ask what the plan is if your child reports something unusual. A clinic that has thought about that has usually thought about the rest.

What would make me stop and get her eyes checked?

Stop the sessions and see an eye doctor within days if your child says a spot in the middle of what they are looking at is blurred or missing, if the world looks patchy after a session, or if an afterimage stays well beyond a few minutes. None of these is a reason for panic. Each is a reason to have the retina looked at properly.

Never lengthen a session or add extra ones to speed things up. The laboratory concern is exposure time, and more light is not a safer experiment. Whatever you decide, a child who is becoming short-sighted still needs a full eye examination first, with dilating drops, so that we know the starting point. If you have not yet had one, here is how a child's eyes are tested. If you are weighing options and want a second opinion, that is what the appointment is for.

Common questions

References

1. JAMA Ophthalmology · Safety Evaluation of 4 Red Light Therapy Devices for Myopia (Ostrin and Schill, 2026) · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
2. Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology · Repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia control: an update on efficacy and safety (2026) · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
3. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology · Safety of repeated low-level red-light therapy for myopia: a systematic review (2024) · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
4. JAMA Ophthalmology · Cone density changes after repeated low-level red light treatment in children with myopia (2025) · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

By Dr Chan Li Yen. General information only. It does not replace a consultation. If you are worried about your child's eyes or vision, please see an eye doctor.