Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36245016›Full record

SynthesisPhotochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology2023

The cutaneous effects of blue light from electronic devices: a systematic review with health hazard identification.

Marissa S Ceresnie, Jay Patel, Henry W Lim, Indermeet Kohli

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Clinical Applications ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  4. New Mechanistic Insights of Melasma.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marissa S CeresniePhotomedicine and Photobiology Unit, Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health, 3031 W. Grand Blvd, Suite 700, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Jay PatelWestern Michigan University College of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.
Henry W LimPhotomedicine and Photobiology Unit, Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health, 3031 W. Grand Blvd, Suite 700, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Indermeet KohliPhotomedicine and Photobiology Unit, Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health, 3031 W. Grand Blvd, Suite 700, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. ikohli1@hfhs.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2316-6375
Henry Ford Health System · USWestern Michigan University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biologic effects of visible light, particularly blue light, on the skin at doses and irradiances representative of sunlight have been established. Recent research studies investigated the effects of blue light (BL) from electronic screen devices; however, it is unclear if the evidence can be generalized to real life. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate available evidence regarding clinical effects of BL emitted from electronic devices on human skin using the framework established by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT). A systematic literature search was conducted by two librarians in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, and Web of Science for relevant articles published from 1946 to March 2022. In vitro and in vivo studies that investigated the effects of BL from electronic devices on skin were included. From the 87 articles gathered from database searches and 1 article identified from citation search, only 9 met the inclusion criteria (6 in vitro and 3 in vivo studies). Human and animal literature with the highest level of evidence ratings were considered with mechanistic data to form one of five human hazard identifications for each outcome category using the OHAT protocol: (1) known, (2) presumed, (3) suspected, (4) not classifiable, or (5) not identified to be a hazard to humans. Literature-based evidence integration did not identify exposure to BL from electronic devices as a hazard to skin pigmentation, redness, yellowness, or melasma exacerbation. Exposure to BL from electronic devices was not classified as a skin photoaging hazard. Low confidence in representative exposure characterization drove high OHAT risk-of-bias ratings for the majority of included studies. While these conclusions hold true for the limited existing data, a larger number of future studies with high-confidence evidence are needed to verify and strengthen hazard identification conclusions.

Indexed as

LightSkinAnimalsHumansBlue lightElectronic devicesMelasmaPhotoagingSkin pigmentationSkin rednessSkin yellowness

Identifiers

PMID36245016
OpenAlexW4306360078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.