Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies

First author (Year) Country Sample size (T/C) Treatment Group Control Group Period Outcome measurements Result Adverse Events
Kennedy13) (2020) UK 64(32/32) Phototherapy shamno light 3 weeks 1.TNSST<C (p<0.01)T : 7±2 to 4±2 C : 7±2 to 7±2 T : NAC : severe rhinorrhea (2)
Bella14) (2017) Hungary 25(14/11) Phototherapy shamVIS 6 weeks 1. Changes in nasal symptoms(using VAS)① at week 6 (after treatment) T : nose bleed(2)nasal pain(3)dryness(3)headache&diarrhea(1)C : nose bleed(2)nasal pain(2)headache&diarrhea(1)
in morningsneezing T>C(p<0.05) T:-2.16 C:-1.44itching T:-2.04 C:-1.95rhinorrhea T>C(p<0.01) T:-2.46C:-1.38obstruction T>C(p<0.05)T:-2.24C:-1.52TNS T>C(p<0.05) T:-8.84 C:–6.30 in eveningsneezing T>C(p<0.05) T:-2.36 C:-1.57itching T:-2.28 C:-1.95rhinorrhea T:-2.07 C:-1.54obstruction T:-1.69 C:-1.47TNS T:-8.38 C:-6.54
② at week 10 (follow-up)
in morningsneezing T:-1.97 C:-1.43itching T>C(p<0.01)T:-2.40 C:-1.47rhinorrhea T>C(p<0.01)T:-3.16C:-1.75obstruction T>C(p<0.01)T:-3.16 C:-1.99TNS T>C(p<0.01) T:-10.62 C:-6.66 in eveningsneezing T:-2.35 C:–1.72itching T>C(p<0.01) T:-2.73 C:–1.53rhinorrhea T>C(p<0.01)T:-2.93C:-1.99obstruction T:-2.47 C:–1.91TNS T>C(p<0.01) T:-10.47 C:-7.19
2. ICAM-1 positive cellsNo significant difference either in time or in inter-group comparisons.
Alyasin15) (2016) Iran 62(31/31) Phototherapy shamVIS 2 weeks 1. TNSS at week 2, 6, 12T<C (p<0.01)T : 9.29±1.901 to 5.48±2.308 to 4.39±2.216 to 3.87±2.680C : 8.74±1.770 to 8.29±1.936 to 8.87±2.029 to 9.00±2.0002. GSS at week 2, 6, 12T<C (p<0.01)T : 12.65±3.14 to 7.71±3.43 to 6.32±3.026 to 5.39±3.730C : 11.10±2.37 to 10.97±2.70 to 11.32±2.74 to 11.55±2.873. RQLQ at 1, 3 monthT<C (p<0.01)T : 22.22±2.96 to 14.90±2.67 to 9.74±3.99C : 22.32±2.86 to 23.19±3.21 to 23.41±3.12 T : dryness(6)mucosal edema(1)headache(2)burning(2)C : NA
Cingi16) (2010) Turkey 79(41/38) Phototherapy shamVIS 2 weeks 1.TNSS (1 month after the end of treatment)① Nasal obstruction T<C(p<0.01) T : 2.64±0.12 to 0.85±0.16 C : 2.35±0.12 to 1.13±0.18② Nasal itching T<C(p<0.01) T : 2.68±0.14 to 0.75±0.14 C : 2.55±0.12 to 1.01±0.16③ Nasal discharge T<C(p<0.01) T : 2.48±0.10 to 0.45±0.11 C : 2.65±0.13 to 1.06±0.12④ Sneezing T<C(p<0.01) T : 2.56±0.16 to 0.5±0.11 C : 2.38±0.12 to 1.02±0.14 T : dryness
Emberlin17) (2009) UK 101(50/51) Phototherapy shamVIS 14 days 1. Symptom severity score (6 point scale;0-5)① Sneezing T<C(p<0.05) T : 3.64±3.6 C : 5.45±4.4② Runny nose T<C(p<0.05) T : 9.9±7.1 C : 13.7±2.3③ Runny eyes T<C(p<0.05) T : 1.8±3.4 C : 3.16±3.2④ Itchy eyes No significant difference between two groups T : 2.3±4.2 C : 3.0±3.5⑤ Itchy nose No significant difference between two groups T : 8.1±7.4 C : 10.3±2.6⑥ Itchy throat No significant difference between two groups T : 6.5±7.4 C : 7.8±8.7⑦ Itchy mouth T<C(p<0.05) T : 3.26±6.0 C : 5.82±8.02. Amount of ECPsNo significant difference between two groups NA
Koreck18) (2005) Hungary 49(25/24) Phototherapy shamVIS 3 weeks 1. TNST<C(p<0.05)2. EosinophilsT<C(p<0.01)3. ECP levelT<C(p<0.05)4. Nasal fluid IL-5 levelT<C(p<0.05)5. IL-4 levelNo significant between two groups6. IL-10In the majority of the concentrated nasal lavage samples, the IL-10 level was below the detection limit of the kit. T : dryness(all)C : dryness(6)
Albu19) (2013) Romania 77(39/38) Phototherapy Conventional TherapyNasal spray 2 weeks 1. TNSSNo significant difference between two groupsT : 8.87±2.43 to 3.75±2.35 C : 8.42±1.92 to 4.15±2.862. RQLQNo significant difference between two groupsT : 3.65±1.39 to 1.37±0.74 C : 3.80±1.75 to 1.58±0.85 T : dryness(all)C : bitter taste(5)
Ni20) (2013) China 128(64/64) Phototherapy Conventional TherapyNasal spray 1 month 1. Effective rateNo significant difference between two groupsT : 59/64 C : 56/64 NR
Huo21) (2011) China 119(56/63) Phototherapy Conventional TherapyNasal spray 4 weeks 1. Symptom severity score (3point scale;1-3)No significant difference between two groupsT : 8.0±2.3 to 3.2±1.5 C : 8.3±2.2 to 2.5±1.32. Effective rateNo significant difference between two groupsT : 47/56 C : 59/63 NR
Garaczi22) (2011) Hungary 31(18/13) Phototherapy Conventional TherapyOral anti-histamines 2 weeks 1. TNSNo significant difference between two groupsT : 8.61±2.64 to 4.56±2.85 C : 7.46±2.57 to 6.39±3.18 T : dryness(all)C : dryness(2)
Pei23) (2013) China 70(35/35) Phototherapy+ acupuncture Acupuncture 20 days 1. Effective rateT>C (p<0.05)T : 33/35 C : 27/35 NR
Moustafa24) (2013) Egypt 40(20/20) Phototherapy+mint tablet Laser acupuncture+mint tablet 6 weeks 1. Severity symptom score at 1, 3 month and 1 year after the treatmentT : There was significant difference between the symptom score before and 1 month after therapy (p<0.01), and despite the regression in the score record after 3 months and 1 year, there was still a significant difference in the score before and after therapy.C : There was significant difference between the symptom score before and 1 month after therapy, and it persisted for 3 months follow-up (p<0.01).2. Serum IgE change fold after 1, 3 monthT : 2.63±2.50 to 1.46±1.98 to 1.24±0.74 (p<0.01)C : 1.10±0.50 to 0.62±0.58 to 0.48±0.44 (p<0.01) NA
TNSS: Total nasal symptom score, T: Treatment group, C: Control group, NA: Not applicable, VIS: visible light, VAS: Visual analogue scale, NR: Not reported, ICAM-1: Intracellular adhesion molecule-1, GSS: Global severity score, RQLQ: Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire, ECP: Eosinophil cationic protein, TNS: Total nasal score, IL: Interleukin. IgE; Immunoglobulin E