Summary of findings 5. Progressive computer glasses with far distance focus versus trifocal computer glasses.
| Progressive computer glasses plus far distance focus compared with trifocal computer glasses for asthenopia | |||||
|
Patient or population: computer workers Settings: workplace Intervention: progressive computer glasses with far distance focus Comparison: trifocal computer glasses | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk2 | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Trifocal computer glasses | Progressive computer glasses | ||||
| Asthenopia (eyestrain severity) Likert scale 0 to 10 3 weeks follow‐up |
The mean asthenopia score in the control group was 1.46 | The mean asthenopia score in the intervention group was 0.5 score points lower (1.46 lower to 0.46 higher) | 24 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Cross‐over trial, unpaired analysis |
| Asthenopia (eyestrain frequency) Likert scale 0 to 10 3 weeks' follow‐up |
The mean asthenopia score in the control group was 2.51 | The mean asthenopia score in the intervention group was 0.75 score points lower (2.45 lower to 0.95 higher) | 24 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Cross‐over trial, unpaired analysis |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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 | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | |||||
1 We downgraded the quality of evidence with two levels because of high risk of bias and with one level because of imprecision (less than 300 participants).
2 This is the mean change score in the control group.
3 We downgraded the quality of evidence with one level because of risk of bias and with one level because of imprecision (less than 300 participants) and with one level again because of inconsistency in the sensitivity analysis.