So your argument is that if you pick a random group of 24 people and study them, there would be improvement to eyesight to all 24 for no reason whatsoever.
Seems reasonable to me.![]()
If the study was significant at the P<0.05 level, which is the typical standard, then they are saying that there is basically a 5% chance of getting the observed effect purely by chance. They don't give access to the article, except if you pay. More serious groups these days use open access (where they pay for public access).
The failure to include a sham, or placebo, treatment is a fatal flaw. In addition, the abstract is completely inadequate, uninformative, and a warning signal of a bad study.
There are, though, many reasonable studies on using NIR (near infrared light) in vision related areas, such as laser eye injury, Leber's hereditary optical neuropathy, and age related macular degeneration, among others. I do not say that PBM for eyes is not real, but don't know if it will ever become useful. The effects measured are just too small and hard to reproduce.
PS. The study size was appropriate for a Phase 1 or pilot study, but it is a long way from there to the clinic.
