Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41140510›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2025

Only shine the light where and when it is needed - the impact of light pollution.

Derrick Wayne Thomas, Mario Motta, John Barentine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Derrick Wayne ThomasUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8DH, United Kingdom.
Mario MottaTufts University School of Medicine, Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111, United States.
John BarentineDarkSky Consultancy LLP, 9420 E Golf Links Rd, Tucson, AZ 85730, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing evidence that artificial light at night (ALAN) has an adverse effect on human health and ecology. Long-term global studies also show that the world is getting brighter at night. This technological advancement comes at a price to both humans and nocturnal species that share our planet. Light pollution is wasted energy when the world is in simultaneous climate, biodiversity and energy security crises. There are no known negative consequences of reducing light pollution. A vital next step is to make 'quick win' changes by following the basic principles of using light only where it is needed, in the right amount, in the right place, at the right time and with the right colour. We advocate for more research into the adverse effects of ALAN on human health to help drive these changes and allow people to make informed choices about how light is used at local, national and international levels.

Identifiers

PMID41140510
PMCPMC12546997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.