-
Interventions for the Management of Computer Vision Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Ophthalmology Oct 2022To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for treating eye strain related to computer use relative to placebo or no treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
TOPIC
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for treating eye strain related to computer use relative to placebo or no treatment.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Computer use is pervasive and often associated with eye strain, referred to as computer vision syndrome (CVS). Currently, no clinical guidelines exist to help practitioners provide evidence-based advice about CVS treatments, many of which are marketed directly to patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to help inform best practice for eye care providers.
METHODS
Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries, searched from inception through November 23, 2021. Eligible studies were appraised for risk of bias and were synthesized. The certainty of the body of evidence was judged using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used when differently scaled measures were combined.
RESULTS
Forty-five RCTs, involving 4497 participants, were included. Multifocal lenses did not improve visual fatigue scores compared with single-vision lenses (3 RCTs; SMD, 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.37; P = 0.38). Visual fatigue symptoms were not reduced by blue-blocking spectacles (3 RCTs), with evidence judged of low certainty. Relative to placebo, oral berry extract supplementation did not improve visual fatigue (7 RCTs; SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.70 to 0.16; P = 0.22) or dry eye symptoms (4 RCTs; SMD, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.33; P = 0.65). Likewise, berry extract supplementation had no significant effects on critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF) or accommodative amplitude. Oral omega-3 supplementation for 45 days to 3 months improved dry eye symptoms (2 RCTs; mean difference [MD], -3.36; 95% CI, -3.63 to -3.10 on an 18 unit scale; P < 0.00001) relative to placebo. Oral carotenoid supplementation improved CFF (2 RCTs; MD, 1.55 Hz; 95% CI, 0.42 to 2.67 Hz; P = 0.007) relative to placebo, although the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.
DISCUSSION
We did not identify high-certainty evidence supporting the use of any of the therapies analyzed. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral omega-3 supplementation reduces dry eye symptoms in symptomatic computer users.
Topics: Asthenopia; Carotenoids; Computers; Dry Eye Syndromes; Eyeglasses; Humans
PubMed: 35597519
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.05.009 -
Nutrients Apr 2023According to reports, supplementation with appropriate doses of taurine may help to reduce visual fatigue. Presently, some progress has been made in research related to... (Review)
Review
According to reports, supplementation with appropriate doses of taurine may help to reduce visual fatigue. Presently, some progress has been made in research related to taurine in eye health, but the lack of systematic summaries has led to the neglect of its application in the relief of visual fatigue. This paper, therefore, provides a systematic review of the sources of taurine, including the endogenous metabolic and exogenous dietary pathways, as well as a detailed review of the distribution and production of exogenous taurine. The physiological mechanisms underlying the production of visual fatigue are summarized and the research progress of taurine in relieving visual fatigue is reviewed, including the safety of consumption and the mechanism of action in relieving visual fatigue, in order to provide some reference basis and inspiration for the development and application of taurine in functional foods for relieving visual fatigue.
Topics: Humans; Taurine; Asthenopia; Diet; Functional Food; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37111062
DOI: 10.3390/nu15081843 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Dec 2020Smartphone overuse has been cited as a potentially modifiable risk factor that can result in visual impairment. However, reported associations between smartphone overuse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Smartphone overuse has been cited as a potentially modifiable risk factor that can result in visual impairment. However, reported associations between smartphone overuse and visual impairment have been inconsistent.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to determine the association between smartphone overuse and visual impairment, including myopia, blurred vision, and poor vision, in children and young adults.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and ScienceDirect databases since the beginning of the databases up to June 2020. Fourteen eligible studies (10 cross-sectional studies and 4 controlled trials) were identified, which included a total of 27,110 subjects with a mean age ranging from 9.5 to 26.0 years. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis of the 10 cross-sectional studies (26,962 subjects) and a fixed-effects model for meta-analysis of the 4 controlled trials (148 subjects) to combine odds ratios (ORs) and effect sizes (ES). The I statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A pooled OR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.98-1.13, P=.16) was obtained from the cross-sectional studies, suggesting that smartphone overuse is not significantly associated with myopia, poor vision, or blurred vision; however, these visual impairments together were more apparent in children (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.14, P=.09) than in young adults (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57-1.46,P=.71). For the 4 controlled trials, the smartphone overuse groups showed worse visual function scores compared with the reduced-use groups. The pooled ES was 0.76 (95% CI 0.53-0.99), which was statistically significant (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Longer smartphone use may increase the likelihood of ocular symptoms, including myopia, asthenopia, and ocular surface disease, especially in children. Thus, regulating use time and restricting the prolonged use of smartphones may prevent ocular and visual symptoms. Further research on the patterns of use, with longer follow up on the longitudinal associations, will help to inform detailed guidelines and recommendations for smartphone use in children and young adults.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Smartphone; Young Adult
PubMed: 33289673
DOI: 10.2196/21923 -
The Ocular Surface Apr 2023Eye strain when performing tasks reliant on a digital environment can cause discomfort, affecting productivity and quality of life. Digital eye strain (the preferred...
Eye strain when performing tasks reliant on a digital environment can cause discomfort, affecting productivity and quality of life. Digital eye strain (the preferred terminology) was defined as "the development or exacerbation of recurrent ocular symptoms and/or signs related specifically to digital device screen viewing". Digital eye strain prevalence of up to 97% has been reported, due to no previously agreed definition/diagnostic criteria and limitations of current questionnaires which fail to differentiate such symptoms from those arising from non-digital tasks. Objective signs such as blink rate or critical flicker frequency changes are not 'diagnostic' of digital eye strain nor validated as sensitive. The mechanisms attributed to ocular surface disease exacerbation are mainly reduced blink rate and completeness, partial/uncorrected refractive error and/or underlying binocular vision anomalies, together with the cognitive demand of the task and differences in position, size, brightness and glare compared to an equivalent non-digital task. In general, interventions are not well established; patients experiencing digital eye strain should be provided with a full refractive correction for the appropriate working distances. Improving blinking, optimizing the work environment and encouraging regular breaks may help. Based on current, best evidence, blue-light blocking interventions do not appear to be an effective management strategy. More and larger clinical trials are needed to assess artificial tear effectiveness for relieving digital eye strain, particularly comparing different constituents; a systematic review within the report identified use of secretagogues and warm compress/humidity goggles/ambient humidifiers as promising strategies, along with nutritional supplementation (such as omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and berry extracts).
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Eye Diseases; Asthenopia; Tears; Life Style; Dry Eye Syndromes
PubMed: 37062428
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the eye. Various blue-light filtering lenses are commercially available. Some claims exist that they can improve visual performance with digital device use, provide retinal protection, and promote sleep quality. We investigated clinical trial evidence for these suggested effects, and considered any potential adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of blue-light filtering lenses compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, for improving visual performance, providing macular protection, and improving sleep quality in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, with no date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants, where blue-light filtering spectacle lenses were compared with non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcomes were the change in visual fatigue score and critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF), as continuous outcomes, between baseline and one month of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, discomfort glare, proportion of eyes with a pathological macular finding, colour discrimination, proportion of participants with reduced daytime alertness, serum melatonin levels, subjective sleep quality, and patient satisfaction with their visual performance. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects. We followed standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs, with sample sizes ranging from five to 156 participants, and intervention follow-up periods from less than one day to five weeks. About half of included trials used a parallel-arm design; the rest adopted a cross-over design. A variety of participant characteristics was represented across the studies, ranging from healthy adults to individuals with mental health and sleep disorders. None of the studies had a low risk of bias in all seven Cochrane RoB 1 domains. We judged 65% of studies to have a high risk of bias due to outcome assessors not being masked (detection bias) and 59% to be at high risk of bias of performance bias as participants and personnel were not masked. Thirty-five per cent of studies were pre-registered on a trial registry. We did not perform meta-analyses for any of the outcome measures, due to lack of available quantitative data, heterogenous study populations, and differences in intervention follow-up periods. There may be no difference in subjective visual fatigue scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, at less than one week of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One RCT reported no difference between intervention arms (mean difference (MD) 9.76 units (indicating worse symptoms), 95% confidence interval (CI) -33.95 to 53.47; 120 participants). Further, two studies (46 participants, combined) that measured visual fatigue scores reported no significant difference between intervention arms. There may be little to no difference in CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, measured at less than one day of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One study reported no significant difference between intervention arms (MD - 1.13 Hz lower (indicating poorer performance), 95% CI - 3.00 to 0.74; 120 participants). Another study reported a less negative change in CFF (indicating less visual fatigue) with high- compared to low-blue-light filtering and no blue-light filtering lenses. Compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, there is probably little or no effect with blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance (BCVA) (MD 0.00 logMAR units, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and unknown effects on daytime alertness (2 RCTs, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence); uncertainty in these effects was due to lack of available data and the small number of studies reporting these outcomes. We do not know if blue-light filtering spectacle lenses are equivalent or superior to non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses with respect to sleep quality (very low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent findings were evident across six RCTs (148 participants); three studies reported a significant improvement in sleep scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, and the other three studies reported no significant difference between intervention arms. We noted differences in the populations across studies and a lack of quantitative data. Device-related adverse effects were not consistently reported (9 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reported on adverse events related to study interventions; three studies described the occurrence of such events. Reported adverse events related to blue-light filtering lenses were infrequent, but included increased depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort wearing the glasses, and lower mood. Adverse events associated with non-blue-light filtering lenses were occasional hyperthymia, and discomfort wearing the spectacles. We were unable to determine whether blue-light filtering lenses affect contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels or overall patient visual satisfaction, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, as none of the studies evaluated these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found that blue-light filtering spectacle lenses may not attenuate symptoms of eye strain with computer use, over a short-term follow-up period, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Further, this review found no clinically meaningful difference in changes to CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Based on the current best available evidence, there is probably little or no effect of blue-light filtering lenses on BCVA compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses. Potential effects on sleep quality were also indeterminate, with included trials reporting mixed outcomes among heterogeneous study populations. There was no evidence from RCT publications relating to the outcomes of contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction. Future high-quality randomised trials are required to define more clearly the effects of blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance, macular health and sleep, in adult populations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Eyeglasses; Asthenopia; Melatonin; Sleep; Light; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37593770
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013244.pub2 -
Journal of Optometry 2024This review aimed to estimate the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) in the general population and subgroups. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This review aimed to estimate the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) in the general population and subgroups.
METHODS
A search was conducted in the following the databases: PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science until February 13, 2023. We included studies that assessed the prevalence of CVS in any population. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of CVS was done using a random-effects model, assessing the sources of heterogeneity using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 103 cross-sectional studies with 66 577 participants were included. The prevalence of CVS was 69.0% (95% CI: 62.3 to 75.3; I: 99.7%), ranging from 12.1 to 97.3% across studies. Point prevalence was higher in women than in men (71.4 vs. 61.8%), university students (76.1%), Africa (71.2%), Asia (69.9%), contact lens wearers (73.1% vs. 63.8%) in studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic (72.8%), and in those that did not use the CVS-Q questionnaire (75.4%). In meta-regression, using the CVS-Q scale was associated with a lower prevalence of CVS.
CONCLUSION
Seven out of ten people suffer from CVS. Preventive strategies and interventions are needed to decrease the prevalence of this condition which can affect productivity and quality of life. Future studies should standardize a definition of CVS.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Computers; Cross-Sectional Studies; Pandemics; Prevalence; Quality of Life; Syndrome; Asthenopia
PubMed: 37866176
DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2023.100482 -
Preventive Medicine May 2023Digital eye strain (DES) or computer vision syndrome (CVS) is a phenomenon linked to ever increasing digital screen use globally, affecting a large number of... (Review)
Review
Digital eye strain (DES) or computer vision syndrome (CVS) is a phenomenon linked to ever increasing digital screen use globally, affecting a large number of individuals. Recognizing causative and alleviating factors of DES may help establish appropriate policies. We aimed to review factors that aggravate or alleviate DES symptoms in young, i.e. pre-presbyopic (< 40 years old), digital device users. We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane, Trip Database, and grey literature up to 1st July 2021. Among a plethora of studies with heterogeneous diagnostic criteria for DES, we only included those using a validated questionnaire for the diagnosis and evaluating associated factors in young subjects. Relevant data were extracted, risk of bias assessment of the included studies and GRADE evaluation of each outcome were performed. Ten studies were included (five interventional, five observational) involving 2365 participants. Evidence coming from studies with moderate risk of bias suggested that blue-blocking filters do not appear to prevent DES (2 studies, 130 participants), while use of screens for > 4-5 h/day (2 studies, 461 participants) and poor ergonomic parameters during screen use (1 study, 200 participants) are associated with higher DES symptoms' score. GRADE evaluation for the outcomes of blue-blocking filters and duration of screen use showed low to moderate quality of evidence. It appears advisable to optimize ergonomic parameters and restrict screen use duration, for minimizing DES symptoms. Health professionals and policy makers may consider recommending such practices for digital screen users at work or leisure. There is no evidence for use of blue-blocking filters.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ergonomics; Computers; Asthenopia
PubMed: 36977430
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107493 -
BMJ Open Aug 2022Increased exposure to digital devices as part of online classes increases susceptibility to visual impairments, particularly among school students taught using...
OBJECTIVES
Increased exposure to digital devices as part of online classes increases susceptibility to visual impairments, particularly among school students taught using e-learning strategies. This study aimed to identify the impact of remote learning during the COVID-19 lockdown on children's visual health.
DESIGN
Systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
Scopus, PubMed and ScienceDirect databases from the year 2020 onwards.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies, case series and case reports, published in English, Spanish or French, that approached the effects of remote learning during the COVID-19 lockdown on visual health in neurotypical children.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We included a total of 21 articles with previous quality assessments using the Joanna Briggs checklist. Risk of bias assessment was applied using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for before-and-after studies with no control group; the tool developed by Hoy to assess cross-sectional studies; the Murad tool to evaluate the methodological quality of case reports and case series; and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.
RESULTS
All but one study reported a deleterious impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on visual health in children. Overall, the most frequently identified ocular effects were refractive errors, accommodation disturbances and visual symptoms such as dry eye and asthenopia.
CONCLUSIONS
Increased dependence on digital devices for online classes has either induced or exacerbated visual disturbances, such as rapid progression of myopia, dry eye and visual fatigue symptoms, and vergence and accommodation disturbances, in children who engaged in remote learning during the COVID-19 lockdown.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022307107.
Topics: COVID-19; Child; Communicable Disease Control; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Learning; Schools; United States
PubMed: 35922104
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062388 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Hyperopia in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hyperopia in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus. Strabismus may result in asthenopia and intermittent diplopia, and makes near work tasks difficult to complete. Spectacles to correct hyperopic refractive error is believed to prevent the development of strabismus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of prescription spectacles compared with no intervention for the prevention of strabismus in infants and children with hyperopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 12; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; three other databases; and two trial registries. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials investigating spectacle intervention or no treatment for children with hyperopia. We required hyperopia to be at least greater than +2.00 diopters (D).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was the proportion of children with manifest strabismus, as defined by study investigators. Other outcomes included the amblyopia, stereoacuity, and the effect of spectacle use of strabismus and visual acuity. We also collected information on change in refractive error as a measurement of the interference of emmetropization.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four randomized controlled trials (985 children enrolled who were aged six months to less than 36 months) in this review. Three trials were in the UK with follow-up periods ranging from one to 3.5 years and one in the US with three years' follow-up. Investigators reported both incidence and final status regarding strabismus. Evidence of the incidence of strabismus, measured in 804 children over three to four years in four trials was uncertain although suggestive of a benefit with spectacle use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.02). We have very low confidence in these results due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When assessed as the proportion of children with strabismus at the end of three years' follow-up, we found a similar level of evidence for an effect of spectacles on strabismus as reported in one study (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.25; 106 children). We have very low confidence in these results because of low sample size and risk of bias. One trial reported on the risk for developing amblyopia and inadequate stereoacuity after three years in 106 children. There was unclear evidence for a decreased risk of developing amblyopia (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.93), and limited evidence for a benefit of spectacles for prevention of inadequate stereoacuity (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.88). We have very low confidence in these findings due to imprecision and risk of bias. The risk of not developing emmetropization is unclear. One trial reported on the proportion of children not achieving emmetropization at three years' follow-up (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.19). One trial suggested spectacles impede emmetropization, and one trial reported no difference. These two trials could not be combined because the methods for assessing emmetropization were different. With the high risk of bias and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for a risk for impeding or benefiting emmetropization is very low. Based on a meta-analysis of four trials (770 children), the risk of having visual acuity worse than 20/30 measured up to three years of age or at the end of three years of follow-up was uncertain for children with spectacle correction compared with those without correction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; very low confidence due to risk of bias and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of spectacle correction for prevention of strabismus is still unclear. In addition, the use of spectacle on the risk of visual acuity worse than 20/30, amblyopia, and inadequate emmetropization is also unclear. There may be a benefit on prevention of inadequate stereoacuity. However, these effects may have been chance findings or due to bias.
Topics: Age Factors; Amblyopia; Bias; Child, Preschool; Emmetropia; Eyeglasses; Humans; Hyperopia; Incidence; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sample Size; Strabismus; Treatment Outcome; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32240551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007738.pub3