Summary of findings 7. Computer glasses versus Ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses.
| Computer glasses adapted to need compared with ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses | ||||||
|
Patient or population: computer workers Settings: workplace Intervention: computer glasses Comparison: ergonomic assessment plus habitual glasses | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative Effect (RR 95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk2 | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Ergonomics | Computer glasses | |||||
| Asthenopia, summed score scale 1 to 140 3 weeks' follow‐up |
The mean asthenopia score in the control group was 24 | The mean asthenopia score in the intervention group was 8.9 score points lower (16.47 lower to 1.33 lower) | 24 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Cross‐over trial, paired analysis | |
| Asthenopia Change score 3 weeks' follow‐up |
The mean asthenopia change score in the control group was 20.4 | The mean asthenopia change score in the intervention group was 17.5 score points lower (23.5 lower to 11.5 lower | 24 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Change scores calculated based on correlation of 0.7. Sensitivity analysis did not reveal big differences | |
| Eyestrain (yes/no) 3 weeks' follow‐up | 690 per 1000 | 657 per 1000 (463 to 927) | RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.34) | 24 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Cross‐over trial |
| Headache (yes/no) 3 weeks' follow‐up | 461 per 1000 | 424 per 1000 (240 to 752) | RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.63) | 24 (1) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Cross‐over trial |
| Upset stomach (yes/no) 3 weeks' follow‐up | 115 per 1000 | 57 per 1000 (16 to 206) | RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.79) | 24 (1) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Cross‐over trial |
| *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 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.