Table 3.
Phototherapy for insomnia and disturbed circadian rhythm.
| Therapy | Evaluation item | Evaluation results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bright light therapy | Representative Study Design | Literature | Population | N | RCT | Placebo effect excluded | Objective biomarkers | Follow-up | |
| (112) | (c) poststroke insomnia patients | 56 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |||
| (113) | (a) diagnosed by DSM-5 | 14 | Yes | No | Yes | No | |||
| (114) | (c) post-acute coronary syndrome patients | 15 | Yes | No | No | No | |||
| Main Clinical Findings & Safety | Improves subjective sleep quality and insomnia. Modestly increases total sleep time, reduces night awakenings, and slightly boosts sleep efficiency (109, 111, 120). Effects on sleep latency are mixed. Generally safe; side effects are mild and transient (headache, eye strain, glare). | ||||||||
| Limitations | Small/short trials; inconsistent light parameters (timing/dose/spectrum); limited sham controls and long-term data; mixed objective outcomes. | ||||||||
| Evidence Level | Emerging. Small controlled studies suggest short-term subjective benefits, but evidence is limited by small samples, indirect populations, limited sham controls, and inconsistent objective outcomes. | ||||||||
| Infrared LED light |
Representative Study Design | Literature | Population | N | RCT | Placebo effect excluded | Objective biomarkers | Follow-up | |
| (115) | (b) adults with subclinical sleep complaints | 30 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |||
| (116) | (d) shift-working nurses | 64 | Yes | No | No | No | |||
| (117) | (b) older adults | 59 | Yes | No | Yes | No | |||
| (119) | (e) healthy men | 24 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |||
| Main Clinical Findings & Safety | Small indirect/subclinical RCTs suggest subjective benefits, but objective and insomnia-specific efficacy remains uncertain. Short-term use appears well tolerated. | ||||||||
| Limitations | Limited by small samples, no long-term follow-up, and most lacking placebo controls. All evaluated indirect populations rather than diagnosed clinical insomnia. | ||||||||
| Evidence Level | Exploratory. Multiple RCTs suggest subjective benefits and good safety, but the evidence is downgraded due to indirect populations, small sample sizes, absent follow-up, inconsistent objective outcomes, and high risk of bias from inadequate placebo controls. | ||||||||
| 40Hz flickering light | Representative Study Design | Literature | Population | N | RCT | Placebo effect excluded | Objective biomarkers | Follow-up | |
| (107) | (e) sleep-deprived rats | 32 | No | No | Yes | No | |||
| (108) | (b) children (e) healthy adults (e) mice |
49 children, 16 adults, mice | No | No | Yes | No | |||
| Main Clinical Findings & Safety | 40Hz light promotes sleep in children with insomnia and alertness in sleep-deprived rats, with no adverse ocular or systemic effects. | ||||||||
| Limitations | Relies on preclinical models and one uncontrolled pediatric pilot study. Lacks sham-controlled RCTs, long-term follow-up, and direct validation in adult insomnia disorder. | ||||||||
| Evidence Level | Exploratory. Based only on preclinical data and one uncontrolled pediatric pilot study; lacks adult RCTs and long-term validation. | ||||||||