MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229044420 · doi:10.1177/07067437221097903

Blue-Light Therapy for Seasonal and Non-Seasonal Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4229044420 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
André Do, Victor W. Li, Samantha Huang, Erin E. Michalak, Edwin M. Tam, Trisha Chakrabarty, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Raymond W. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsLight therapyMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialMajor depressive disorderConfidence intervalClinical endpointDepression (economics)MedicineRating scaleInternal medicinePsycINFOStrictly standardized mean differencePsychiatryMEDLINEPsychologyCircadian rhythmMoodBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of blue-light therapy in seasonal and non-seasonal major depressive disorder (MDD), by comparison to active and inactive control conditions. Methods We searched Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 17, 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using search terms for blue/blue-enhanced, light therapy, and depression/seasonal affective disorder. Two independent reviewers extracted data. The primary outcome was the difference in endpoint scores on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - Seasonal Affective Disorder (SIGH-SAD) or the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement (SIGH-ADS) between blue light and comparison conditions. Secondary outcomes were response (≥ 50% improvement from baseline to endpoint on a depression scale) and remission rates (endpoint score in the remission range). Results Of 582 articles retrieved, we included nine RCTs ( n = 347 participants) assessing blue-light therapy. Seven studies had participants with seasonal MDD and two studies included participants with non-seasonal MDD. Four studies compared blue light to an inactive light condition (efficacy studies), and five studies compared it to an active condition (comparison studies). For the primary outcome, a meta-analysis with random-effects models found no evidence for the efficacy of blue-light conditions compared to inactive conditions (mean difference [MD] = 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.28 to 6.14, P = 0.20); however, blue-light also showed no differences compared to active conditions (MD = −0.11; 95% CI, −2.38 to 2.16, P = 0.93). There were no significant differences in response and remission rates between blue-light conditions and inactive or active light conditions. Blue-light therapy was overall well-tolerated. Conclusions The efficacy of blue-light therapy in the treatment of seasonal and non-seasonal MDD remains unproven. Future trials should be of longer duration, include larger sample sizes, and attempt to better standardize the parameters of light therapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.031
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207