ArticlePloS one2016
Distributions of Direct, Reflected, and Diffuse Irradiance for Ocular UV Exposure at Different Solar Elevation Angles.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Conjunctival Ultraviolet Autofluorescence: A Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Observed Ocular Damage.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing Human Eye Exposure to UV Light: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Are surfers and scuba divers an overlooked at-risk group for age-related macular degeneration?Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Sun exposure to the eyes: predicted UV protection effectiveness of various sunglasses.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2019Article
- Efficiency of ocular UV protection by clear lenses.Biomedical optics express · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyze intensities of ocular exposure to direct (Eo,dir), reflected (Eo,refl), and diffuse (Eo,diff) ultraviolet (UV) irradiance at different solar elevation angles (SEAs), a rotating manikin and dual-detector spectrometer were used to monitor the intensity of ocular exposure to UV irradiation (Eo) and ambient UV radiation (UVR) under clear skies in Sanya, China. Eo,dir was derived as the difference between maximum and minimum measured Eo values. Eo,refl was converted from the value measured at a height of 160 cm. Eo,diff was calculated as the minimum measured Eo value minus Eo,refl. Regression curves were fitted to determine distributions of intensities and growth rates at different wavelengths and SEAs. Eo,dir differed from ambient UVR exposure. Linear, quadratic, and linear Eo,dir distributions were obtained in SEA ranges of 14°-30°, 30°-50°, and 50°-90°, respectively, with maximum Eo,dir at 32°-38° SEA. Growth rates of Eo,dir with increasing wavelength were fitted with quadratic functions in all SEA ranges. Distributions and growth rate of Eo,refl values were fitted with quadratic functions. Maximum Eo,diff was achieved at the same SEA for all fitted quadratic functions. Growth rate of Eo,diff with increasing wavelength was fitted with a linear function. Eo,dir distributions were fitted with linear or quadratic functions in different SEA ranges. All Eo,refl and Eo,diff distributions were fitted with quadratic functions. As SEA increased, the Eo,dir portion of Eo increased and then decreased; the Eo,refl portion increased from an initial minimum; and the Eo,diff portion first decreased and then increased. The findings may provide data supporting on construction of a mathematical model of ocular UV exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.