Cochrane · systematic review · CD012243
Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers
Pachito, DV, Eckeli, AL, Desouky, AS, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
WorkAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
13
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 15.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 46.2%Low 5 · 38.5%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
High correlated colour temperature light versus standard illumination for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Population: daytime workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Alertness High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination | no estimate extracted | 163 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mood (positive) High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination | no estimate extracted | 94 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mood (negative) High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination | no estimate extracted | 94 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events ‐ eye discomfort High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination | no estimate extracted | 94 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Indirect light versus direct light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Population: daytime workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Alertness Indirect light vs direct light | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mood Indirect light vs direct light | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events (ocular problems) Indirect light vs direct light | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Individually applied blue‐enriched light versus no treatment for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Population: daytime workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Alertness Individually applied blue‐enriched light vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mood Individually applied blue‐enriched light vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events Individually applied blue‐enriched light vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for improving mood and alertness in daytime workers
Population: daytime workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Alertness Morning bright light vs afternoon bright light | MD 7 | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mood Morning bright light vs afternoon bright light | RR 1.6 [0.81, 3.2] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events (frequency) Morning bright light vs afternoon bright light | RR 0.53 [0.26, 1.07] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |