ArticleBMJ public health2025
Evidence-based public health messaging on the non-visual effects of ocular light exposure: a modified Delphi expert consensus.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ocular light and optical radiation exposure as a modifiable environmental determinant of health: expert consensus on research gaps and priorities.BMC medicine · 2026Guideline
- Daylight, Daily Rhythms, and Downstream Physiology: A Translational Study in Diurnal Nile Grass Rats (Journal of biological rhythms · 2026Article
- The impact of environmental pollution and climate change on hypertension: a position paper by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Environment in Hypertension.Cardiovascular research · 2026Review
- From Sunlight to Screens: Modeling When Light Exposure Matters Most for Sleep and Circadian Health.Clocks & sleep · 2026Article
- Physiologically-relevant light exposure and light behaviour in Switzerland and Malaysia.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Observational
- Bright days, dark nights: translating science on the non-visual effects of light into public health guidance.Public health reviews · 2026Article
- Acute effects of daylight saving time clock changes on mental and physical health in England: population based retrospective cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Evidence-based public health messaging on the non-visual effects of ocular light exposure: A modified Delphi expert consensus.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Evidence-based public health messaging on the non-visual effects of ocular light exposure: a modified Delphi expert consensus.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: In addition to vision, light regulates circadian rhythms, sleep, mood and alertness. Despite growing scientific understanding, there remains a gap in translating this knowledge into accessible, evidence-based guidance. The goal of this paper is to formulate scientifically grounded statements about the influence of light on human psychological and physiological health, intended for dissemination to the public and policymakers. Methods: An international consortium of 21 experts convened at the Ladenburg Roundtable in April 2024. Experts were selected based on their scientific contributions to chronobiology, psychology, neuroscience, and the measurement and practical application of light. Through a structured, iterative modified Delphi process, 27 statements were developed. Each statement included a simplified public-facing version and contextual information to support understanding. Consensus was assessed using predefined thresholds of agreement (>75% endorsement). Statements not meeting consensus were revised and re-evaluated. Results: Of the 27 proposed statements, 26 reached the threshold for consensus, with high levels of agreement across diverse topics. One statement did not reach consensus due to insufficient scientific evidence and was excluded, while another was revised based on feedback and subsequently accepted. The iterative revision process significantly improved the clarity, accuracy and accessibility of the final statements. A readability assessment showed an average sentence length of 14.8 words and a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 8.6, indicating that the statements suit a broad, non-specialist audience. The final consensus statements are available at lightforpublichealth.org. Conclusions: This expert consensus provides clear, accessible messages about how light affects human health. The statements offer a practical tool for public education and policymaking and can be used by public-health multipliers (eg, schools, employers, healthcare providers and urban planners) to promote healthier light exposure in daily life. They highlight the importance of recognising light as a key factor in health, alongside sleep, nutrition and physical activity.
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.