Randomized Controlled Trial, 176 adults: After 28 days, 80.9% of people using 630/850-nanometer red and near-infrared light achieved at least a 50% reduction in pain, compared with 27.6% using a sham (placebo) device—a difference of 53.3 percentage points.
If you have lived with low-back pain, you know how quickly it can shrink an ordinary day. Getting out of a chair, loading the dishwasher, driving, exercising, or sleeping can all become harder than they should be.
That is why a new randomized controlled trial published in Lasers in Medical Science is worth a closer look. Researchers tested whether a wearable device combining red and near-infrared LED light could reduce chronic nonspecific low-back pain. The short-term result was striking: people receiving the active light treatment were nearly three times as likely to achieve a major reduction in pain as those using a sham device.
The finding is encouraging. It is also specific to one device, one treatment schedule, and a four-week study. Here is what everyday readers should know.
First, what is “nonspecific” low-back pain?
“Nonspecific” does not mean the pain is imaginary or unimportant. It means clinicians cannot trace it to one clearly identified cause such as a fracture, tumor, infection, compressed nerve root, or another specific disease.
This is the most common kind of low-back pain. In this study, “chronic” meant that the pain had lasted at least 12 weeks. Participants also began the trial with pain rated at least 4 on a 0-to-10 scale.
How the study worked
The trial included 176 adults treated across three hospitals. Researchers randomly assigned them to one of two groups:
- Active treatment: 89 people used a flexible device that delivered 630-nanometer red light and 850-nanometer near-infrared light directly to the painful area of the lower back.
- Sham (control group) treatment: 87 people used a device that looked and operated the same but emitted only very low-power visible red light and no therapeutic infrared output.
Both groups also received rehabilitation training. Participants used their assigned device at home for 20 minutes, twice a day, with at least three hours between sessions, for 28 consecutive days. They were asked to avoid other physical treatments during the trial and to limit pain medicine when possible.
Only the participants were blinded to which treatment they received. The clinicians guiding the self-assessments knew the group assignments.
The main result: a large difference in pain response
The researchers defined a treatment response as a reduction in pain of at least 50% from the beginning of the study.
- 80.9% of the active-treatment group responded—about 72 of 89 people.
- 27.6% of the sham group responded—24 of 87 people.
- That is an absolute difference of 53.3 percentage points.
Put another way, the response rate with active treatment was about 2.9 times the response rate with sham treatment. The average improvement in pain also favored active treatment by 2 points on the 0-to-10 pain scale. The researchers noted that this exceeded a commonly used threshold for a clinically meaningful difference in chronic low-back pain.
This matters because a statistically significant result can sometimes be too small for a person to notice. Here, the pain difference was large enough to be meaningful in daily life, at least during the study’s short timeframe.
Was it safe?
No serious adverse events occurred. The reported events were mild—most commonly respiratory infections, cough, and fever—and investigators judged them unrelated to either device.
That is reassuring, but it does not mean red-light therapy is appropriate for everyone. The study excluded people with a number of conditions and circumstances, including pregnancy, certain heart-rhythm problems, pacemakers or metal implants, photosensitivity-related conditions, and use of some medications that can increase sensitivity to light.
If you have a medical condition, take prescription medication, or have unexplained or worsening back pain, speak with a qualified clinician before beginning a light-based treatment.
How might red and near-infrared light help?
Photobiomodulation uses specific wavelengths of light to influence biological activity in exposed tissue. Researchers have proposed several possible effects, including changes in cellular energy production, inflammatory signaling, circulation, muscle tension, and pain signaling.
Those mechanisms are still being studied, and this trial was designed to measure outcomes—not to prove exactly why the treatment worked. The most responsible conclusion is that this particular red and near-infrared protocol improved short-term pain outcomes in this group of adults.
Photobiomodulation for recovery
This study adds promising clinical evidence for red and near-infrared light as a noninvasive option for chronic nonspecific low-back pain. Its strongest message is not that one session “fixes” back pain. It is that a consistent, well-defined light protocol may become a useful part of a repeatable recovery routine.
For most people, chronic back pain is best approached from more than one angle. Appropriate medical evaluation, progressive movement, strength, sleep, stress management, and other clinician-recommended care still matter. Photobiomodulation may complement that plan; it should not replace diagnosis or necessary treatment.
If you are exploring red-light therapy, ask practical questions: What wavelengths does the device use? What dose reaches the treatment area? How often should it be used? Is the protocol appropriate for your health history and goals? A beautiful device matters less than a clear, consistent, evidence-aware plan.
Interested in building a recovery routine around your goals? Book a Protocol4 consultation and bring the best technology home.
Study source
Yi B, Kou D, Cao B, et al. “Clinical efficacy study of LED red and infrared light therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain.” Lasers in Medical Science. Published August 22, 2026. Read the full open-access study or view the PubMed record. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-026-04994-2.