Comment on: The Blue Light Hazard Versus Blue Light Hype.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Blue Light Filtration in Intraocular Lenses: Effects on Visual Function and Systemic Health.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
   Review
2. Can Nutrition Play a Role in Ameliorating Digital Eye Strain?Nutrients · 2022
   Review
3. Blue-light-filtering spectacle lenses in managing vision-related symptoms: an updated review.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology
   Review
4. The evidentiary basis and challenges associated with studying the role of light damage on ocular health.Journal of optometry
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Comment on: The Blue Light Hazard Versus Blue Light Hype.2022
• Comment on
  The Blue Light Hazard Versus Blue Light Hype.2022

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as