Summary of findings 6. Progressive computer glasses with far distance focus versus monofocal computer glasses.
| Progressive computer glasses plus far distance focus compared with monofocal computer glasses for asthenopia | |||||
|
Patient or population: computer workers Settings: workplace Intervention: progressive computer glasses with far‐distance focus Comparison: monofocal computer glasses | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk2 | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Monofocal computer glasses | Progressive computer glasses | ||||
| Asthenopia (change from baseline to 12 months) VAS scale 0 to 100 12 months' follow‐up |
The mean asthenopia change score in the control group was 2.51 | The mean asthenopia change score in the intervention group was 1.79 score points lower (11.60 lower to 8.02 higher) | 64 (1) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | Change scores based on imputed correlation coefficient (0.7). Sensitivity analysis revealed no change |
| Headache (change from baseline to 12 months) VAS scale 0 to 100 12 months' follow‐up |
The mean headache change score in the control group was −3.42 | The mean headache change score in the intervention group was 8.21 score points higher (4.55 lower to 20.97 higher) | 64 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3 | Change scores based on imputed correlation coefficient (0.7). Sensitivity analysis revealed different results for values of 0 and 0.9 |
| *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% CI) 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 one level because of risk of bias and with one level because of imprecision (less than 300 participants).
2 This is the 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.