Cochrane · systematic review · CD011269
Light therapy for preventing seasonal affective disorder
Nussbaumer‐Streit, B, Forneris, CA, Morgan, LC, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 12 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyBright white light therapy compared with no light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: all participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.64 [0.3, 1.38] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.21 [0.03, 1.75] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall discontinuation ( Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 2.22 [0.29, 17.27] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Infrared light therapy compared with no light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: all participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.5 [0.21, 1.17] | 1 study · 24 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.2 [0.02, 1.64] | 1 study · 24 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall discontinuation ( Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 1.67 [0.2, 13.98] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Light therapy compared with no light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: all participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.57 [0.3, 1.1] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.21 [0.04, 1.05] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall discontinuation ( Light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 1.94 [0.27, 14.01] | 1 study · 46 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bright white light therapy compared with infrared light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: all participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy | RR 1.29 [0.5, 3.28] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy | RR 1.07 [0.07, 15.54] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall discontinuation ( Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy | RR 1.33 [0.35, 5.13] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bright white light therapy compared with no light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.64 [0.3, 1.38] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.21 [0.03, 1.75] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Overall discontinuation ( Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 2.22 [0.29, 17.27] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Infrared light therapy compared with no light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.5 [0.21, 1.17] | 1 study · 24 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.2 [0.2, 1.64] | 1 study · 24 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Overall discontinuation ( Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 1.67 [0.2, 13.98] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Light therapy compared with no light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.57 [0.3, 1.1] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 0.21 [0.04, 1.05] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Overall discontinuation ( Light therapy vs no light therapy | RR 1.94 [0.27, 14.01] | 1 study · 46 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Bright white light therapy compared with infrared light therapy for prevention of SAD
Population: All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy | RR 1.29 [0.5, 3.28] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy | RR 1.07 [0.07, 15.54] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Overall discontinuation ( Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy | RR 1.33 [0.35, 5.13] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |