Study	Reason for exclusion
Aarås 1998	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Balci 2001	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Daum 2003	Probably participants did not use a computer for at least 4 hours a day; authors did not respond to request for information.
Daum 2007a	Probably participants did not use a computer for at least 4 hours a day; authors did not respond to request for information.
Daum 2007b	Study was terminated because principal investigator left the university; no publications.
Feigin 2003	Intervention not relevant (spectral filters instead of refractive error correction), probably non‐random assignment.
Guo 2010	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Heatly 2005	Wrong patient population.
Jaschinski 2015	Not an intervention study.
Kojima 2011	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Lazarus 1996	Intervention is not only refractive error correction but a correction with prisms as well.
Lie 1994	Intervention is not refractive error correction.
Lin 2017	Intervention is filter in glasses, not refractive error correction.
Lodin 2012	Wrong patient population.
Palm 1987	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Potvin 1998	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Rosenfield 2012	No randomisation.
Scullica 1995	Intervention is not a correction of refractive error.
Vidal‐Lopez 2015	Wrong patient population.
Wallin 1994	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Weidling 2015	Wrong study design (no randomisation).
Wiggins 1991	Wrong patient population: volunteers involved, not using a computer for at least 4 hours a day.
Wiggins 1992	Wrong patient population: volunteers involved, not using a computer for at least 4 hours a day.