Optometry and Vision Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableBlue-light filtering spectacle lenses for visual performance, sleep, and macular health in adults (Review)(WILEY, 2023)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.
-
ItemIs critical flicker-fusion frequency a valid measure of visual fatigue? A post-hoc analysis of a double-masked randomised controlled trial(WILEY, 2023-03)PURPOSE: Critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF) has been used in clinical studies as a measure of visual fatigue. We examine the correlation between CFF and subjective reports of visual fatigue in a group of symptomatic computer users, to consider whether CFF may be used as a surrogate measure of visual fatigue symptoms. METHODS: We analysed data from a previous randomised controlled trial. One hundred and twenty adults, diagnosed with computer vision syndrome, had CFF and visual fatigue symptoms quantified before and after a visually demanding 2-h computer task. Symptoms were assessed using a questionnaire with nine subcomponents that summed to a total score of 900. CFF was measured using a two-interval forced-choice method, with the flicker rate altered by a computer-controlled staircase procedure. For our primary analysis, we determined Spearman correlation coefficients between post-task symptom scores and CFF, and between change from baseline symptom scores and CFF. We also used a bootstrap procedure to consider whether symptom score subcomponents were significantly (Bonferroni-corrected) different from overall scores with regard to their correlations with CFF. RESULTS: Although visual fatigue symptom scores altered significantly post-task (mean change: 92 units; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11 to 122), CFF did not (mean change -0.7 Hz; 95% CI: -1.7 to 0.3). There was no significant correlation between overall symptom scores and CFF, either for the post-task (r = -0.13; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.05) or the change from baseline (r = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.01) analysis. Subcomponents of the symptom questionnaire did not show a significant correlation with CFF, either for the post-task or the change from baseline analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We find that CFF is not a useful surrogate for symptoms of visual fatigue, given its low correlation with scores on a visual fatigue symptom questionnaire.
-
ItemInterventions for the Management of Computer Vision Syndrome A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis(ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2022-10)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.
-
Item
-
ItemInsights into Australian optometrists' knowledge and attitude towards prescribing blue light-blocking ophthalmic devices(WILEY, 2019-05)PURPOSE: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to survey Australian optometrists regarding their attitudes towards, and knowledge of, blue light-blocking lenses designed to attenuate blue light transmission to the eye. METHODS: A 29-item survey was distributed at a major national optometry education conference and through professional networks. Respondents provided information regarding their demographics and practice modalities, knowledge about the potential effects of blue light, and attitudes towards prescribing blue light-blocking ophthalmic devices. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the factors that predicted optometrists' prescribing of blue light-blocking lenses. RESULTS: Of 372 respondents, 75.3% indicated prescribing blue light-blocking spectacle lenses in their clinical practice. Forty-four per cent of optometrists considered daily environmental exposure to blue light as a potential cause of retinal damage, and approximately half of respondents thought blue light emitted from computer screens was an important factor in causing computer vision syndrome. About half of optometrists considered placebo effects to potentially play a role, at least sometimes, in patients' experiences with blue light-blocking lenses. Most optometrists estimated that they first prescribed a blue light-blocking lens in 2016. The most common reason optometrists prescribed these devices was for patients who were computer or electronic device users (87.9%). The two main sources of information used to guide practitioners' management approaches were conference presentations and manufacturer product information. Practitioners were significantly more likely to prescribe blue light-blocking lenses if they considered blue light to cause either retinal damage (odds ratio, OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.34-3.88, p = 0.002) or computer vision syndrome (OR 2.52, 95%CI 1.41-4.50, p = 0.002) compared with practitioners who did not consider such factors to be relevant. CONCLUSION: Prescribing trends by Australian optometrists in relation to blue light-blocking lenses reflect the inconclusive nature of several aspects of the evidence in this field. Blue light-blocking lens prescribing has increased since 2010, despite practitioners acknowledging the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use and also commonly believing that placebo effects may have a role in patient responses to these lenses. Information from this study will help inform the development of resources to guide evidence-based prescribing of blue light-blocking lens products.
-
ItemOmega-3 Fatty Acids and Eye Health: Opinions and Self-Reported Practice Behaviors of Optometrists in Australia and New Zealand(MDPI, 2020-04)This study investigated optometrists' attitudes and self-reported practice behaviors towards omega-3 fatty acids for eye health, and knowledge and understanding of their potential risks and benefits. An anonymous online survey was distributed to optometrists in Australia and New Zealand. Questions included practitioner demographics and practice modality; self-reported practices and recommendations relating to diet, nutritional supplements, and omega-3 fatty acids for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and dry eye disease (DED); and practitioner knowledge about omega-3 fatty acids. Of 206 included surveys, most respondents (79%) indicated recommending for their patients to consume omega-3 fatty acids to improve their eye health. Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated recommending omega-3-rich foods for AMD management, while 62% indicated recommending omega-3 supplements. Most respondents (78%) indicated recommending omega-3-rich foods or supplements for DED. For DED, recommended omega-3 supplement dosages were (median [inter-quartile range, IQR]) 2000 mg [1000-2750 mg] per day. The main sources of information reported by respondents to guide their clinical decision making were continuing education articles and conferences. In conclusion, optometrists routinely make clinical recommendations about diet and omega-3 fatty acids. Future education could target improving optometrists' knowledge of differences in the evidence for whole-food versus supplement sources of omega-3 fatty acids in AMD. Further research is needed to address uncertainties in the evidence regarding optimal omega-3 dosage and formulation composition in DED.
-
ItemMigraine Screening in Primary Eye Care Practice: Current Behaviors and the Impact of Clinician Education(WILEY, 2020-09)BACKGROUND: Migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Optometrists are primary eye care providers, who regularly encounter people with migraine as an incidental finding during routine eye examinations, or when patients present to rule out whether visual or ocular problems are contributing to headache symptoms. Knowledge and use of a migraine screening tool in optometric practice is, therefore, important to be able to identify and refer people with migraine for appropriate management. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate optometrists' current behaviors regarding screening for migraine, and to assess the effectiveness of an educational resource in promoting the use of a 3-item validated migraine screening questionnaire, the ID-Migraine. METHODS: We first conducted a cross-sectional study using a survey to assess optometrists' current knowledge and behaviors about migraine screening and willingness to participate in a pilot implementation program. Participants who provided their contact details were invited to watch an online educational resource about a validated migraine screening tool. After 6 weeks, these participants were invited to participate in a follow-up cohort study involving a survey to assess the effectiveness of the educational resource. RESULTS: Ninety-eight optometrists completed the initial survey as part of the cross-sectional study. We found that most optometrists actively asked patients about migraine (79/98 respondents, 81%) as part of routine eye examinations and self-rated themselves as confident in identifying migraine (71/98 respondents, 72%). However, the majority (90/98 respondents, 92%) were not aware of any validated migraine screening tools. Seventy-eight respondents provided their contact details to receive information about the subsequent cohort study. In response to the follow-up study survey (31/78 participants, 40%), 45% (14/31 respondents) of participants self-reported using the ID-Migraine tool after watching our educational video, and most of these participants (12/14 respondents, 86%) were likely or extremely likely to continue to use the tool in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: From our initial cross-sectional survey, we conclude that optometrists do not currently use validated screening tools for migraine and as such, there is an opportunity for continuing professional development in this area. Our follow-up cohort study demonstrates that educating optometrists on the importance and utility of a validated migraine screening tool is achievable with a relatively simple, low-time investment intervention (an online educational video). Such education may result in improved identification of migraine, which may lead to improved management.