2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.062
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A sham-controlled randomized trial of adjunctive light therapy for non-seasonal depression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…27 Three studies examined medication use retrospectively and found no differences between conditions. 25,28,31 In the sensitivity analysis of potential sources of variability in study methodology, excluding the study with 11 participants with bipolar SAD changed the results from positive to narrowly missing statistical significance. In addition, the sensitivity analysis that excluded the quasi-randomized trial found no difference between active light and control conditions, although that analysis included only five fully randomized trials (198 participants).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…27 Three studies examined medication use retrospectively and found no differences between conditions. 25,28,31 In the sensitivity analysis of potential sources of variability in study methodology, excluding the study with 11 participants with bipolar SAD changed the results from positive to narrowly missing statistical significance. In addition, the sensitivity analysis that excluded the quasi-randomized trial found no difference between active light and control conditions, although that analysis included only five fully randomized trials (198 participants).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…26 The duration of follow-up ranged from 14 days for four studies to 28, 42, and 56 days for each of three studies. The control conditions also varied: two studies used an inactive negative ion generator, 28,29 one study used a low-density negative ion generator, 30 and four studies used low intensity light (100 lux or less in three studies, and 500 lux or less in one study). Note that one study 29 examined 400 lux narrow-spectrum (green) light as an active treatment compared to a nonlight control condition, although 400 lux would generally be considered no brighter than illumination in a typical office setting.…”
Section: Figure 1 Shows the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematicmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…One inherent problem of bright light studies is the choice of an appropriate placebo condition (Eastman, Young, Fogg, Liu, & Meaden, 1998). Several types of placebo or a combination of them are used in placebo-controlled LT studies: dim red light (as opposed to bright blue light), differently timed light (evening vs. morning), an inert placebo (a light box emitting no visible light) or an inert (deactivated) negative ion generator (for examples see (Chojnacka et al, 2016;Eastman, et al, 1998;Sit et al, 2018)). Indeed, due to the lack of an obvious type of placebo treatment, LT studies have been extensively criticized for their flawed experimental design.…”
Section: Light Treatment For Circadian Alignmentmentioning
confidence: 99%