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).