Dataset Information

Commercially Available Phototherapy Devices for Treatment of Depression: Physical Characteristics of Emitted Light.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate key physical properties of commercially available light devices for the treatment of seasonal or nonseasonal depression and to determine whether the devices met clinical criteria, derived from evidence-based clinical guidelines, for generating adequate light at a reasonable distance, over a reasonable field of illumination, and with an adequate degree of user acceptability.

Methods

Twelve manufacturers loaned or donated 24 light therapy devices: 16 light boxes, one light column, four light-emitting diode beam devices, and three light visors. Each device was evaluated for spectral power distribution, light dispersion, subjective discomfort from glare, adequacy of diffusion, photopic illuminance (in lumens per square meter [lux]), melanopic illuminance relative to photopic illuminance (efficacy ratio), and blue light hazard relative to melanopic illuminance (protection ratio).

Results

Physical properties of emitted light varied widely among devices. Only seven larger light boxes satisfied the three clinical criteria. Some devices advertised as "10,000-lux" devices produced this intensity only at unreasonably close distances, over a restricted field, or with unacceptable glare or unevenness of illumination. Five other devices emitted light with physical properties whose efficacy is less supported by research, although these devices may be useful for some patients.

Conclusions

These results should help clinicians identify appropriate devices for patients seeking light therapy for seasonal or nonseasonal depression. Device selection is key to ensuring that patients receive evidence-supported doses of light.

SUBMITTER: Oldham MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9175704 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Commercially Available Phototherapy Devices for Treatment of Depression: Physical Characteristics of Emitted Light.

Oldham Mark A MA Oldham Mary B MB Desan Paul H PH

Psychiatric research and clinical practice 20191003 2

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to evaluate key physical properties of commercially available light devices for the treatment of seasonal or nonseasonal depression and to determine whether the devices met clinical criteria, derived from evidence-based clinical guidelines, for generating adequate light at a reasonable distance, over a reasonable field of illumination, and with an adequate degree of user acceptability.<h4>Methods</h4>Twelve manufacturers loaned or donated 24 light ...[more]

PMID: 36101875

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate whether commercially available 'off-the-shelf' wearable technology can improve patient rehabilitation outcomes, and to categorise all wearables currently being used to augment rehabilitation, including the disciplines and conditions under investigation.DesignSystematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 statement checklist, and using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched up to and including July 2023.Eligibility criteriaWe included trials and observational studies evaluating the use of consumer-grade wearables, in real patient cohorts, to aid physical therapy or rehabilitation. Only studies investigating rehabilitation of acute events with defined recovery affecting adult patients were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers used a standardised protocol to search, screen and extract data from the included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Methods Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials V.2 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, respectively.ResultsEighteen studies encompassing 1754 patients met eligibility criteria, including six RCTs, six quasi-experimental studies and six observational studies. Eight studies used wearables in Orthopaedics, seven in Stroke Medicine, two in Oncology and one in General Surgery. All six RCTs demonstrated that wearable-driven feedback increases physical activity. Step count was the most common measure of physical activity. Two RCTs in orthopaedics demonstrated non-inferiority of wearable self-directed rehabilitation compared with traditional physiotherapy, highlighting the potential of wearables as alternatives to traditional physiotherapy. All 12 non-randomised studies demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of wearable-driven self-directed rehabilitation.ConclusionThis review demonstrates that consumer-grade wearables can be used as adjuncts to traditional physiotherapy, and potentially as alternatives for self-directed rehabilitation of non-chronic conditions. Better designed studies, and larger RCTs, with a focus on economic evaluations are needed before a case can be made for their widespread adoption in healthcare settings.Prospero registration idCRD42023459567.

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.ObjectiveA systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.ResultsA total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.ConclusionMost of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community.MethodsIn a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing.ResultsOf 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p = 0.063).ConclusionsCP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of wearable technological devices or sensors that are commercially available for gait training is increasing. These devices can fill a gap by extending therapy outside the clinical setting. This was shown to be important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people could not access one-on-one treatment. These devices vary widely in terms of mechanisms of therapeutic effect, as well as targeted gait parameters, availability, and strength of the evidence supporting the claims.ObjectiveThis study aimed to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the public.MethodsAs there is no systematic or reproducible way to identify gait training technologies available to the public, we used a pragmatic, iterative approach using both the gray and published literature. Four approaches were used: simple words, including some suggested by laypersons; devices endorsed by condition-specific organizations or charities; impairment-specific search terms; and systematic reviews. A findable list of technological devices targeting walking was extracted separately by 3 authors. For each device identified, the evidence for efficacy was extracted from material displayed on the websites, and full-text articles were obtained from the scientific databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Additional information on the target population, mechanism of feedback, evidence for efficacy or effectiveness, and commercial availability was obtained from the published material or websites. A level of evidence was assigned to each study involving the device using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. We also proposed reporting guidelines for the clinical appraisal of devices targeting movement and mobility.ResultsThe search strategy for this consumer-centered review yielded 17 biofeedback devices that claim to target gait quality improvement through various sensory feedback mechanisms. Of these 17 devices, 11 (65%) are commercially available, and 6 (35%) are at various stages of research and development. Of the 11 commercially available devices, 4 (36%) had findable evidence for efficacy potential supporting the claims. Most of these devices were targeted to people living with Parkinson disease. The reporting of key information about the devices was inconsistent; in addition, there was no summary of research findings in layperson's language.ConclusionsThe amount of information that is currently available to the general public to help them make an informed choice is insufficient, and, at times, the information presented is misleading. The evidence supporting the effectiveness does not cover all aspects of technology uptake. Commercially available technologies help to provide continuity of therapy outside the clinical setting, but there is a need to demonstrate effectiveness to support claims made by the technologies.

Project description:IntroductionThe ability to reliably measure real-world vaping behavior is critical to understand exposures to potential toxins. Commercially available mobile topography devices were originally designed to measure cigarette puffing behavior. Information regarding how applicable these devices are to the measurement of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) vaping topography is needed.MethodsClinical Research Support System (CReSS; Pocket) and Smoking Puff Analyzer Mobile (SPA-M) topography devices were tested against the calibrated laboratory-based smoking puff analyzer duplicator (SPA-D) device combined with an analytical smoking machine that generates programmable puffs with high precision. Puff topography of e-cigarettes was measured over a range of puff volumes (10-130 mL) at 2 and 5 s puff durations (using bell- and square-shaped puffs). "Real-world" topography data collected from 10 participants during 1 week of at-home vaping were also analyzed. Recording anomalies and limitations of the devices, such as accuracy of detection of the puff end, flow rate dropouts, unreported puffs, and abandoned vaping sessions for the CReSS, and multi-peak puffs for the SPA-M were defined.ResultsThe accuracy of puff volumes and durations was determined for both devices. The error for SPA-M was generally within ±10%, whereas that for the CReSS varied more widely. The CReSS consistently underestimated puff duration at higher flow rates.ConclusionsCReSS and SPA-M topography devices can be used for real-world e-cigarette topography measurements, but researchers have to be aware of the limitations. Both devices can provide accurate measurements only under certain puff parameter ranges. The SPA-M provided more accurate measurements under a wider range of puffing parameters than the CReSS. Summary data reported by both devices require thorough analysis of the raw data to avoid misleading data interpretation.ImplicationsResults of this study provide researchers with valuable information about the capability of commercially available cigarette topography devices to measure real-world vaping behaviors. The differing measurement ranges of the two devices and puff recording limitations and anomalies should be taken into account during analysis and interpretation of real-world data.

Dataset Information

Commercially Available Phototherapy Devices for Treatment of Depression: Physical Characteristics of Emitted Light.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Commercially Available Phototherapy Devices for Treatment of Depression: Physical Characteristics of Emitted Light.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets