ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2019
Commercially Available Phototherapy Devices for Treatment of Depression: Physical Characteristics of Emitted Light.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of bright light therapy on non-motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- The Use of Phototherapy for the Treatment of Non-Seasonal Depression: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate key physical properties of commercially available light devices for the treatment of seasonal or nonseasonal depression and to determine whether the devices met clinical criteria, derived from evidence-based clinical guidelines, for generating adequate light at a reasonable distance, over a reasonable field of illumination, and with an adequate degree of user acceptability. Methods: Twelve manufacturers loaned or donated 24 light therapy devices: 16 light boxes, one light column, four light-emitting diode beam devices, and three light visors. Each device was evaluated for spectral power distribution, light dispersion, subjective discomfort from glare, adequacy of diffusion, photopic illuminance (in lumens per square meter [lux]), melanopic illuminance relative to photopic illuminance (efficacy ratio), and blue light hazard relative to melanopic illuminance (protection ratio). Results: Physical properties of emitted light varied widely among devices. Only seven larger light boxes satisfied the three clinical criteria. Some devices advertised as "10,000-lux" devices produced this intensity only at unreasonably close distances, over a restricted field, or with unacceptable glare or unevenness of illumination. Five other devices emitted light with physical properties whose efficacy is less supported by research, although these devices may be useful for some patients. Conclusions: These results should help clinicians identify appropriate devices for patients seeking light therapy for seasonal or nonseasonal depression. Device selection is key to ensuring that patients receive evidence-supported doses of light.
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.