Skin rejuvenation involves restoration of the skin from normal aging, sun exposure, or other damages through a variety of non-invasive and invasive methods, and is undergoing rapid advancements within cosmetic science.¹ Increased interest in skin rejuvenation has led to projected compound annual growth rates of 9.6% in cosmetic surgery from 2022-2030 and 15.4% in non-invasive aesthetic treatments from 2023-2030 globally.¹ One non-invasive method with growing popularity is red light therapy (RLT), also known as photobiomodulation, and previously known as low-level laser light therapy. RLT works through utilization of red light (620-700 nm) and near-infrared light (700-1440 nm) to stimulate a variety of effects in the skin.² While not fully understood, RLT is thought to work by stimulating cytochrome c oxidase in mitochondria, boosting ATP production and signaling pathways that promote cell repair and regeneration.³ In the context of skin rejuvenation, RLT has been shown to improve appearance of wrinkles, telangiectasias, elasticity, hydration, density, roughness, and tightness via stimulation of matrix metalloproteinase, nitric oxide release, COL1A1 and COL3A1 gene expression, and growth factors, which in turn lead to increased type I collagen, type III collagen, elastin, and vasodilation.²

RLT devices have helped address several issues previously linked to laser treatments, including cost, safety risks, and requirement for specialized operators.³ However, widespread availability of RLT devices for at-home use has raised concerns about the lack of standardized safety guidelines and limited understanding of long-term side effects. Consequently, this study aims to analyze Google Trends data for the search “red light therapy” to characterize temporal and geographic patterns in public interest and to contextualize emerging demand for RLT within clinical counseling and future research needs.

Google Trends is a free, publicly accessible tool that analyzes the prevalence of Google search terms over time in various regions. To measure interest, Google Trends assigns a value proportional to the highest point within a specific region and period. A peak popularity score of 100 demonstrates the maximum interest point, while a score of 0 represents insufficient data for the term. For a period between June 2020 to June 2025, the search “red light therapy” was analyzed and compared to three other non-invasive skin rejuvenation therapies identified as the most clinically popular by a 2024 review¹: tretinoin, platelet rich plasma, and radiofrequency ablation.

Of the four measured non-invasive skin rejuvenation therapies, Figure 1 shows that searches for “red light therapy” showed the greatest increase over time (rate of change= +0.0355) compared to “tretinoin” (+0.0205), platelet rich plasma (+0.0003) and “radiofrequency ablation” (+0.0002). Although all four therapies have demonstrated clinical effectiveness, RLT emerged as the most frequently searched term, suggesting a greater level of patient interest. Interestingly, Google Trends geospatial analysis revealed the greatest search volumes in Idaho, Utah, Hawaii, Arizona, and Colorado, suggesting that providers in these states should especially be prepared to discuss RLT with patients (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

While these data do not equate to clinical use or efficacy, they may signal a need for provider familiarity with emerging patient preferences. Clinicians providing skin rejuvenation treatments must be prepared to counsel patients regarding evidence-based benefits, treatment timelines, and differences between in-clinic and at-home RLT products. While there is evidence that RLT is a safe treatment for skin rejuvenation, questions remain due to differences between available RLT products in regards to irradiance, wavelength accuracy and features.⁴ One study thoroughly analyzed a single RLT mask (Skin Light Dior x Lucibel) and concluded that the product was safe, with both observable and measurable improvements in reversal of aging signs in 20 patients.⁵ While these results are encouraging, they are based on a single high-end device priced at over $3,000 USD and may not reflect the typical experience of the average at-home consumer. Therefore, it is essential to establish standardized safety protocols, usage instructions, and follow-up guidelines to ensure that all red-light therapy devices, regardless of cost, can be used safely and effectively by patients. Another research direction is effectiveness of RLT versus more researched modalities like tretinoin, radiofrequency, and platelet rich plasma. Future research will be necessary to highlight benefits and drawbacks of RLT in comparison to these established methods.

Limitations of this study include lack of advanced analysis provided by Google Trends. For example, further data would be useful to measure the impact of social media, marketing, and celebrity endorsement on patient search behavior, as well as whether increased searches translated into product use. Future studies should focus on larger, controlled trials that compare different RLT products both to each other and to other skin rejuvenation methods. Overall, RLT is a promising, non-invasive option for skin rejuvenation with growing public interest supported by our findings with Google Trends. As consumer demand rises, it is critical for clinicians and researchers to ensure that safety, efficacy, and regulations develop in conjunction.