thorien said:
Y
I'm sorry but you obviously have little or no experience of research papers. There is no cherry picking this is a Cochrane review which is the highest regarded evidence base.
To summarise for you :
The review found that blue-light filtering spectacles did not perform any better that non-blue-light filtering spectacles in reducing eye strain associated with computer use, had little or no effect on best corrected visual acuity and an inconclusive effect on sleep quality.
The high quality study found the following key findings:
There may be no short-term advantages with using blue-light filtering lenses to reduce visual fatigue with computer use, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses
There is limited information about the potential effect(s) of blue-light filtering lenses on visual acuity and the effects on sleep-related measures are unclear
Adverse events related to blue-light filtering lenses were infrequently reported, but included increased depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort wearing the glasses and lower mood.
But yes good luck in your quest to buy some anyway. However I was replying to your questioning of my statement that they have no clinical benefit.
Which they don't .
Thanks for your help, unfortunately this is still not what I’m looking for, also sorry if I upset you man. But you 100% can go through and cherry pick any research paper and interpret anything how you like. Also I don’t know why but every comment you leave I read in an old man British accent in my head and love it. Finally I’m not really on here to argue online with someone I was looking for recommendations.
But for the sake of arguing with others on the internet because it’s fun:
617 people in 17 trials is quite a small sample size. Those number make it sound big but that’s just not the case especially since this is all over the place in ages and countries the sample size is not big nor is it consistent. anyone who’s done research or taken a basic statistics class knows that. It’s not like you are chasing anything exceeding rare or dangerous in this the data set.
A majority of these studies did not focus or care about sleep. Which is what I’m focused on.
This systematic review says that they had no idea what glasses people were wearing. Which if you were trying to get good data would be the first thing you did and you would put a graph showing what wavelengths of light are filtered out that would be damning evidence.
The best conclusion you can draw from this if you actually read the paper which I’m sure you did and you drew you own informed conclusions. Would be the following: inconclusive at least in reference to sleep. The data is inconsistent and bad across the board. No fault of the paper there just isn’t enough good data.
Also no one cares what journal something is posted in, or a least shouldn’t care about that. While it may be a good start point to find reputable papers or sources the data is what matters not where it was posted if someone posted a full paper doing good science on Wikipedia it is just as valuable as being posted anywhere else.
Finally if this were to improve my sleep by 5% across a lifetime I personally would call it a win even if it was a placebo especially since it is such a small amount of money with 0 downsides. People on here buy and use things that very much could have massive downsides which ZERO evidence.
Also I hope you read my comments in a cowboy accent
