Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

工作場所照明在改善白天工作人員的警覺性和情緒方面的作用

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012243.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 02 marzo 2018see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Salud laboral

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Daniela V Pachito

    Correspondencia a: Cochrane Brazil, Centro de Estudos de Saúde Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Alan L Eckeli

    Neuroscience and Behavioural Sciences, São Paulo University, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

  • Ahmed S Desouky

    Cairo, Egypt

  • Mark A Corbett

    Corbett & Associates PtyLtd, Walkerville, Australia

  • Timo Partonen

    Department of Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

  • Shantha MW Rajaratnam

    School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

  • Rachel Riera

    Cochrane Brazil, Centro de Estudos de Saúde Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil

Contributions of authors

Conceiving the protocol: DVP, RR.

Designing the protocol: DVP, ALE, ASD, MAC, TP, SMWR, RR.

Co‐ordinating the protocol: DVP, RR.

Designing search strategies: DVP, RR.

Writing the protocol: DVP, RR.

Providing general advice on the protocol: DVP, ALE, ASD, MAC, TP, SMWR, RR.

Screening references: DVP, RR.

Data extraction: DVP, RR.

Data synthesis: DVP, RR.

Writing the review: DVP.

Providing general advice on the review: DVP, TP, RR.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland.

    Institutional affiliation of author Timo Partonen

  • Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.

    Institutional affiliation of author Alan Eckeli

  • Monash University, Australia.

    Institutional affiliation of author Shanthakumar Wilson Rajaratnam

External sources

  • Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Brazil.

    Training for preparing Cochrane protocols and reviews for author Daniela Pachito

  • Central Queensland University, Australia.

    Access to databases through institutional electronic library.

Declarations of interest

DVP: None known.

ALE: None known.

ASD: None known.

MAC: None known.

TP: Received lecture fees (Dila, Finnair, Helen, Helsinki Fair, Lundbeck, MCD‐Team, MERCURIA, Servier Finland, Speakers Forum Finland, YTHS). Royalties (Kustannus Oy Duodecim, Oxford University Press, Terve Media).

SMWR: Received grant/research support from Philips Respironics, Cephalon, Philips, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, consultancy fees from Edan Safe, Alertness CRC, corporate benefit/equipment donation from Compumedics, Tyco Healthcare, Philips Lighting, Optalert.

RR: None known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jani Ruotsalainen, Managing Editor and Jos Verbeek, Co‐ordinating Editor from the Cochrane Work Group for their help in all stages of the current review. We thank Heikki Laitinen, Kaisa Hartikainen and Cristiane Rufino for their valuable assistance in developing the search strategies. We also thank Cochrane Work Editor Carel Hulshof and external peer referees Mikko Härmä, Steven Lockley, and an anonymous peer referee for their comments and Anne Lawson for copy editing the text.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Mar 02

Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers

Review

Daniela V Pachito, Alan L Eckeli, Ahmed S Desouky, Mark A Corbett, Timo Partonen, Shantha MW Rajaratnam, Rachel Riera

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012243.pub2

2016 Jun 14

Workplace lighting for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Protocol

Daniela V Pachito, Alan L Eckeli, Ahmed S Desouky, Mark A Corbett, Timo Partonen, Shanthakumar M Wilson Rajaratnam, Rachel Riera

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012243

Differences between protocol and review

We followed the methods that we specified in our protocol (Pachito 2016), with the following minor adjustments.

We did not foresee the category of indirect versus direct lighting sources. We included this category at the review stage because the study by Fostervold 2008 met all the eligibility criteria. We redefined the category 'light administered in sequences with particular interstimulus intervals' into 'individually administered light versus no treatment,' to assemble all types of individually applied lighting interventions under the same topic.

We planned to calculate photopic and melanopic illuminance using the method described by Lucas 2014 for each meta‐analysis. However, considering that the two studies included in the single meta‐analysis in this review employed the same light source from the same manufacturer, we considered the studies as being similar regarding photopic and melanopic illuminance.

At the protocol stage, We did not explicitly specify how we would judge the overall risk of bias of the included studies. We judged a study to have a high risk of bias overall when we judged one or more domains to have a high risk of bias. Conversely, we judged a study to have a low risk of bias when we judged low risk of bias for all domains.

Notes

Parts of the methods section and Appendix 2 of this protocol were based on a standard template established by the Cochrane Work Group.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

PRISMA study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 4 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, outcome: alertness.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 4 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, outcome: alertness.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 1 Alertness ‐ Item Decreased Daytime Alertness from Columbia Jet Lag Scale 14 weeks.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 1 Alertness ‐ Item Decreased Daytime Alertness from Columbia Jet Lag Scale 14 weeks.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 2 Alertness ‐ Item Sleepiness in Day from Columbia Jet Lag Scale 14 weeks.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 2 Alertness ‐ Item Sleepiness in Day from Columbia Jet Lag Scale 14 weeks.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 3 Alertness ‐ Karolinska Sleepiness Scale: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 3 Alertness ‐ Karolinska Sleepiness Scale: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 4 Alertness ‐ meta‐analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 4 Alertness ‐ meta‐analysis.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 5 Mood ‐ Positive Mood PANAS Scale: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 5 Mood ‐ Positive Mood PANAS Scale: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 6 Mood ‐ Negative Mood PANAS Scale: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 6 Mood ‐ Negative Mood PANAS Scale: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 7 Adverse events ‐ eye discomfort: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 7 Adverse events ‐ eye discomfort: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 8 Adverse events ‐ irritability: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 8 Adverse events ‐ irritability: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 9 Adverse events ‐ headache: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 9 Adverse events ‐ headache: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 10 Adverse events ‐ eye strain: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 10 Adverse events ‐ eye strain: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 11 Adverse events ‐ eye fatigue: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 11 Adverse events ‐ eye fatigue: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 12 Adverse events ‐ difficult focusing: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 12 Adverse events ‐ difficult focusing: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 13 Adverse events ‐ difficulty concentrating: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 13 Adverse events ‐ difficulty concentrating: mean of all time points.

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 14 Adverse events ‐ blurred vision: mean of all time points.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination, Outcome 14 Adverse events ‐ blurred vision: mean of all time points.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 1 Mood BDI: indirect lighting versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 1 Mood BDI: indirect lighting versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 2 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 2 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 3 Mood Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): indirect lighting versus 70% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 3 Mood Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): indirect lighting versus 70% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 4 Mood BDI: indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 4 Mood BDI: indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 5 Mood BDI: 70% indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 5 Mood BDI: 70% indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 6 Mood BDI: 70% indirect lighting versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 6 Mood BDI: 70% indirect lighting versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 7 Mood BDI: 30% indirect lighting versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 7 Mood BDI: 30% indirect lighting versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 8 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 8 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 9 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 9 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 10 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 10 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 11 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 11 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 12 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 12 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 13 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 13 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 14 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 14 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 15 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 15 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 16 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 16 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 17 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 17 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 18 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 18 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 19 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.19

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 19 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 20 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.20

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 20 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 21 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.21

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 21 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 22 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.22

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 22 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 23 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.23

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 23 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 24 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.24

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 24 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 25 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.25

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 25 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 70% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 26 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.26

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 26 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 27 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.27

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 27 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 28 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.28

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 28 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 29 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.29

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 29 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 30 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 30% indirect versus direct lighting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.30

Comparison 2 Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting, Outcome 30 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 30% indirect versus direct lighting.

Comparison 3 Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Alertness ‐ Epworth Sleepiness Scale.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Alertness ‐ Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Comparison 3 Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Mood Beck Depression Inventory‐II.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Mood Beck Depression Inventory‐II.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 1 Alertness (visual analogue scale (VAS)) after 2 weeks of intervention.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 1 Alertness (visual analogue scale (VAS)) after 2 weeks of intervention.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 2 Mood (≥ 50% of reduction of Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale‐Seasonal Affective Disorders Version (SIGH‐SAD) scores from baseline after 2 weeks of treatment)).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 2 Mood (≥ 50% of reduction of Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale‐Seasonal Affective Disorders Version (SIGH‐SAD) scores from baseline after 2 weeks of treatment)).

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 3 Mood SIGH‐SAD after 2 weeks of intervention.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 3 Mood SIGH‐SAD after 2 weeks of intervention.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 4 Mood 21‐item Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale after 2 weeks of interventions.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 4 Mood 21‐item Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale after 2 weeks of interventions.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 5 Mood 17‐item Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale after 2 weeks of intervention.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 5 Mood 17‐item Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale after 2 weeks of intervention.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 6 Mood Seasonal Affective Disorders subscale after 2 weeks of intervention.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 6 Mood Seasonal Affective Disorders subscale after 2 weeks of intervention.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 7 Mood VAS after 2 weeks of intervention.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 7 Mood VAS after 2 weeks of intervention.

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 8 Frequency of adverse events after 2 weeks of intervention.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light, Outcome 8 Frequency of adverse events after 2 weeks of intervention.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Patient or population: daytime workers
Setting: offices
Intervention: high correlated colour temperature light
Comparison: standard illumination

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)

№ of participants
Effective sample size*

(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Risk with standard illumination

Risk with CCT light

Alertness
assessed with: CJL and KS Scale
CLJ range 1 to 5

KS range 1 to 9 (worst)
follow‐up: range 1‐3 months

‐‐

SMD** 0.69 lower
(1.28 lower to 0.1 lower)

163

Effective sample size = 50
(2 CBA studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1

Mood (positive)
assessed with: PANAS
Scale from: 10 (worst) to 50 (best)
follow‐up: 1 month

Mean standard positive mood 25.9

MD 2.08 higher
(0.1 lower to 4.26 higher)

94

Effective sample size = 34
(1 CBA study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

Mood (negative)
assessed with: PANAS
Scale from: 10 (best) to 50 (worst)
follow‐up: 1 month

Mean standard negative mood 13.7

MD 0.45 lower
(1.84 lower to 0.94 higher)

94

Effective sample size = 34
(1 CBA study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

Adverse events ‐ eye discomfort
follow‐up: 1 month

Mean standard adverse events 1.7

MD 0.23 lower
(0.37 lower to 0.09 lower)

94

Effective sample size = 34
(1 CBA study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1

* Effective sample sizes applied to correct for the unit‐of‐analysis error.

** As a rule of thumb, 0.2 Standard Deviations represents a small difference, 0.5 a moderate difference, and 0.8 a large difference.

CI: confidence interval; CCT: correlated colour temperature; MD: mean difference; PANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; SMD: standardised mean difference.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 The assessment of risk of bias for non‐randomised studies starts at low‐quality evidence. We downgraded the level of evidence with one level, i.e. to very low quality, due to imprecision caused by a small sample size.

2 We would have downgraded the level of evidence with one more level due to imprecision caused by wide confidence intervals that include a null effect but we had already reached a judgment of very low‐quality evidence.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Summary of findings 2. Indirect light versus direct light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Indirect light versus direct light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Patient or population: daytime workers
Setting: offices
Intervention: indirect lighting
Comparison: direct lighting

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Risk with direct light

Risk with indirect light

Alertness

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Mood
assessed with: BDI
Scale: 0 (best) to 63 (worst)
follow‐up: 5 months

Mean mood 5.8

MD 1 higher
(2.86 lower to 4.86 higher)

22
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

Adverse events

(ocular problems)
follow‐up: 5 months

Mean adverse events 0.4

MD 0.1 lower
(0.92 lower to 0.72 higher)

22
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 We downgraded the level of evidence with one level, i.e. from high to moderate quality, due to risk of bias (the authors did not fully describe how or if they employed allocation concealment, outcome assessors were not blinded and there was a high and unbalanced attrition rate).

2 We downgraded the level of evidence with one level, i.e. from moderate to low quality, due to imprecision (a small sample size and a wide confidence interval including a null effect).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Indirect light versus direct light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Summary of findings 3. Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Patient or population: daytime workers
Setting: hospital
Intervention: individually applied blue‐enriched light
Comparison: no treatment

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Risk with light as usual

Risk with blue‐enriched light

Alertness
assessed with: Epworth Sleepiness Scale
Scale from: 0 to 24 (worst)
follow‐up: 16 weeks

Mean alertness

MD 3.3 lower
(6.28 lower to 0.32 lower)

25
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

Mood
assessed with: Beck Depression Inventory‐II
Scale from: 0 to 63 (worst)
follow‐up: 16 weeks

Mean mood

MD 4.8 lower
(9.46 lower to 0.14 lower)

25
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

Adverse events

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 We downgraded the level of evidence with two levels, i.e. from high to low quality, due to risk of bias (the authors did not fully describe how or if they employed allocation concealment, outcome assessors were not blinded, results for SIGH‐HDRS were not reported and there was a high attrition rate).

2 We downgraded the level of evidence with one level, i.e. from low to very low quality, due to imprecision (a small sample size and a wide confidence interval).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Summary of findings 4. Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers

Patient or population: daytime workers
Setting: offices
Intervention: morning bright light
Comparison: afternoon bright light

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect with morning bright light
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Risk with afternoon bright light

Risk with morning bright light

Alertness
assessed with: visual analogue scale
Scale from: 0 to 100 (better)
follow‐up: 2 weeks

Mean 59 (SD 23)

Mean 66 (SD 25)

MD 7 higher
(−10.18 lower to 24.18 higher)

30
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

Mood
assessed with: SIGH‐SAD (≥ 50% reduction of SIGH‐SAD)
follow‐up: 2 weeks

426 per 1000

688 per 1000
(345 to 1376)

RR 1.60
(0.81 to 3.20)

30
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

Adverse events (frequency)
follow‐up: 2 weeks

712 per 1000

375 per 1000
(349 to 1000)

RR 0.53
(0.26 to 1.07)

30
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SIGH‐SAD: Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale‐Seasonal Affective Disorders Version.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 We downgraded the level of evidence with one level, i.e. from high to moderate quality, due to risk of bias (the authors did not fully describe their randomisation method nor how or if they employed allocation concealment).

2 We downgraded the level of evidence with one level, i.e. from moderate to low quality, due to imprecision (a small sample size and a wide confidence interval including a null effect).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Comparison 1. High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Alertness ‐ Item Decreased Daytime Alertness from Columbia Jet Lag Scale 14 weeks Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Alertness ‐ Item Sleepiness in Day from Columbia Jet Lag Scale 14 weeks Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Alertness ‐ Karolinska Sleepiness Scale: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Alertness ‐ meta‐analysis Show forest plot

2

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.28, ‐0.10]

5 Mood ‐ Positive Mood PANAS Scale: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Mood ‐ Negative Mood PANAS Scale: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Adverse events ‐ eye discomfort: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Adverse events ‐ irritability: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Adverse events ‐ headache: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Adverse events ‐ eye strain: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11 Adverse events ‐ eye fatigue: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12 Adverse events ‐ difficult focusing: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13 Adverse events ‐ difficulty concentrating: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14 Adverse events ‐ blurred vision: mean of all time points Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination
Comparison 2. Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mood BDI: indirect lighting versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Mood BDI after 2 months: indirect lighting versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Mood BDI after 5 months: indirect lighting versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ ocular problems indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ ocular problems indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Mood Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): indirect lighting versus 70% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Mood BDI after 2 months: indirect lighting versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Mood BDI after 5 months: indirect lighting versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Mood BDI: indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Mood BDI after 2 months: indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Mood BDI after 5 months: indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Mood BDI: 70% indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Mood BDI after 2 months: 70% indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Mood BDI after 5 months: 70% indirect lighting versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Mood BDI: 70% indirect lighting versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Mood BDI after 2 months: 70% indirect lighting versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Mood BDI after 5 months: 70% indirect lighting versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Mood BDI: 30% indirect lighting versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Mood BDI after 2 months: 30% indirect lighting versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Mood BDI after 5 months: 30% indirect lighting versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ reading problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ reading problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ ocular problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ ocular problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Adverse events ‐ ocular problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ ocular problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ ocular problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ reading problems indirect versus 70% indirect lightning

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ reading problems indirect versus 70% indirect lightning

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 Adverse events ‐ reading problems indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ reading problems indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ reading problems indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

16.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

17.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ reading problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Adverse events ‐ reading problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

18.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ reading problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ reading problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

19.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

20.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ concentration problems indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

21.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ concentration problems indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ concentration problems indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

22.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

23.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ concentration problems 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

24 Adverse events ‐ concentration problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

24.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ concentration problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

24.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ concentration problems 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

25 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 70% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

25.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

25.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 70% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

26 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

26.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

26.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

27 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

27.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

27.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

28 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

28.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

28.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus 30% indirect lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

29 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

29.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

29.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 70% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

30 Adverse events ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 30% indirect versus direct lighting Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

30.1 Adverse events after 2 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

30.2 Adverse events after 5 months ‐ musculoskeletal symptoms 30% indirect versus direct lighting

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Different proportions of direct and indirect indoor lighting
Comparison 3. Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Alertness ‐ Epworth Sleepiness Scale Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Mood Beck Depression Inventory‐II Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment
Comparison 4. Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Alertness (visual analogue scale (VAS)) after 2 weeks of intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Mood (≥ 50% of reduction of Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale‐Seasonal Affective Disorders Version (SIGH‐SAD) scores from baseline after 2 weeks of treatment)) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Mood SIGH‐SAD after 2 weeks of intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Mood 21‐item Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale after 2 weeks of interventions Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Mood 17‐item Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale after 2 weeks of intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Mood Seasonal Affective Disorders subscale after 2 weeks of intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Mood VAS after 2 weeks of intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Frequency of adverse events after 2 weeks of intervention Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light