Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Colecciones especiales

Topics

Temas

PRISMA study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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)).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
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
Ir a la tabla de la revisión