Effect of Bright Light Therapy on Perinatal Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Effet de la luminothérapie sur la dépression périnatale: une revue systématique et une méta-analyse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study represents the inaugural attempt to systematically review and analyse the efficacy of bright light therapy on depression among women experiencing major depressive disorder or depressive symptoms during the perinatal period, encompassing its efficacy on depression scores, remission rates, and response rates. Methods We searched 10 databases for randomized controlled trials examining bright light therapy's efficacy on perinatal depression up to January 2024. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 investigators. The Cochrane Handbook guidelines appraised the study quality, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach assessed evidence certainty. Results We incorporated 6 studies, encompassing 151 participants. When contrasted with dim light therapy, bright light therapy did not significantly alter depression scores (standard mean difference = −0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.62 to 0.04, P = 0.08, I² = 34%) or response rates (risk ratio [RR] = 1.56, 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.49, P = 0.06, I² = 0%) in women experiencing perinatal depression. Conversely, bright light therapy was associated with a substantial increase in remission rates (RR = 2.63, 95% CI, 1.29 to 5.38, P = 0.008, I² = 2%). Conclusion Bright light therapy did not show efficacy in treating perinatal depression in terms of depression scores and response rates. However, regarding the remission rate, bright light did show efficacy compared to control conditions. Due to the limited sample size in the included studies, type II err or may occur. To obtain more conclusive evidence, future studies must employ larger sample sizes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".