<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>104(35)</volume><submitter>Yao J</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>The increasing use of digital devices has raised concerns about the effects of blue light exposure on overall well-being. Blue light-filtering intraocular lenses (BF-IOLs) have been developed to mitigate these effects, particularly in cataract surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the benefits of BF-IOLs and standard intraocular lenses (IOLs) on the subjective sleep quality of cataract patients.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 2024. Studies that compared BF-IOLs with standard IOLs in cataract patients were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 8 studies, including 1007 patients, were analyzed. These studies showed variability in design and quality, with some exhibiting moderate-to-high risks of bias. The random-effects model indicated that BF-IOLs were associated with a slight, statistically nonsignificant improvement in subjective sleep quality in cataract patients, with limited clinical relevance compared with standard IOLs (4-12 months postimplantation), with a standardized mean difference of 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-0.21). However, no significant between-group difference was observed in the longer term (6-12 months), with a standardized mean difference of 0.03 (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.13). Objective sleep parameters, such as sleep efficiency and total sleep time, also showed favorable effects for BF-IOLs. For sleep efficiency, the overall combined effect size was small-to-medium (Hedge's g = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.17-0.92), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 26.94%). For total sleep time, a small-to-medium effect size was observed (Hedge's g = 0.22; 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.76), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 17.41%). A moderate effect was found in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores (Hedges' g = 0.41), while the wide confidence interval (95% CI: 0.08-1.83) indicated high imprecision and uncertainty in the estimate.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>BF-IOLs exhibited potential benefits in improving subjective sleep quality shortly after implantation. Further high-quality, long-term randomized controlled trials are required to substantiate these findings and optimize clinical recommendations for cataract surgery patients.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Medicine</journal><pagination>e43915</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12401231</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Benefits of blue light-filtering intraocular lenses for subjective sleep quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12401231</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Jiang Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yao J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhang H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yuan M</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Benefits of blue light-filtering intraocular lenses for subjective sleep quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>The increasing use of digital devices has raised concerns about the effects of blue light exposure on overall well-being. Blue light-filtering intraocular lenses (BF-IOLs) have been developed to mitigate these effects, particularly in cataract surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the benefits of BF-IOLs and standard intraocular lenses (IOLs) on the subjective sleep quality of cataract patients.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 2024. Studies that compared BF-IOLs with standard IOLs in cataract patients were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 8 studies, including 1007 patients, were analyzed. These studies showed variability in design and quality, with some exhibiting moderate-to-high risks of bias. The random-effects model indicated that BF-IOLs were associated with a slight, statistically nonsignificant improvement in subjective sleep quality in cataract patients, with limited clinical relevance compared with standard IOLs (4-12 months postimplantation), with a standardized mean difference of 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-0.21). However, no significant between-group difference was observed in the longer term (6-12 months), with a standardized mean difference of 0.03 (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.13). Objective sleep parameters, such as sleep efficiency and total sleep time, also showed favorable effects for BF-IOLs. For sleep efficiency, the overall combined effect size was small-to-medium (Hedge's g = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.17-0.92), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 26.94%). For total sleep time, a small-to-medium effect size was observed (Hedge's g = 0.22; 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.76), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 17.41%). A moderate effect was found in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores (Hedges' g = 0.41), while the wide confidence interval (95% CI: 0.08-1.83) indicated high imprecision and uncertainty in the estimate.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>BF-IOLs exhibited potential benefits in improving subjective sleep quality shortly after implantation. Further high-quality, long-term randomized controlled trials are required to substantiate these findings and optimize clinical recommendations for cataract surgery patients.</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Aug</publication><modification>2026-05-29T22:10:14.402Z</modification><creation>2026-05-18T03:07:12.391Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12401231</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40898463</pubmed><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000043915</doi></cross_references></HashMap>