Efficacy of bright light therapy improves outcomes of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Psychiatry Research Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116303
Lian Du , Jinkun Zeng , Hua Yu , Bijun Chen , Wei Deng , Tao Li
{"title":"Efficacy of bright light therapy improves outcomes of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Lian Du ,&nbsp;Jinkun Zeng ,&nbsp;Hua Yu ,&nbsp;Bijun Chen ,&nbsp;Wei Deng ,&nbsp;Tao Li","doi":"10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The efficacy of bright light therapy (BLT) in the context of perinatal depression remains underexplored. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness of BLT among perinatal depression. A comprehensive literature search was performed across several databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CNKI and the clinical trials registry platform, covering the period from the inception of each database up to January 2024. The Cochrane Collaboration's bias assessment tool was employed to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Review Manager 5.3 Software was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis. Six trials, encompassed a total of 167 participants diagnosed with perinatal depression were incorporated quantitative analysis, all of those have been published in English, with no restriction on publication year, and used BLT and dim light therapy (DLT) as intervention. The relative risk (<em>RR</em>) of BLT compared to DLT for perinatal depression is 1.46 (fixed effects model, <em>p</em> = 0.04, 95 % <em>CI</em> = [1.02, 2.10]), indicating a significant improvement in depression outcomes compared to DLT groups. The heterogeneity test yielded an <em>I<sup>2</sup></em> value of 41 % (<em>p</em> = 0.13), indicated a low degree of heterogeneity. Considering the small sample size, we conducted a sensitivity analysis, found <em>RR</em> increased to 2.33 (fixed effects model, <em>p</em> = 0.001, <em>CI</em> = 1.39–3.92). Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool showed only a single study was deemed high quality. This study indicates a beneficial impact of BLT on perinatal depression, subgroup analysis finds no significant mediation effects of different parameters after sensitivity analyses. It is recommended that future studies with larger samples be conducted to explore the effects of BLT on perinatal depression.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20819,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Research","volume":"344 ","pages":"Article 116303"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178124005882","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The efficacy of bright light therapy (BLT) in the context of perinatal depression remains underexplored. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness of BLT among perinatal depression. A comprehensive literature search was performed across several databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CNKI and the clinical trials registry platform, covering the period from the inception of each database up to January 2024. The Cochrane Collaboration's bias assessment tool was employed to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Review Manager 5.3 Software was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis. Six trials, encompassed a total of 167 participants diagnosed with perinatal depression were incorporated quantitative analysis, all of those have been published in English, with no restriction on publication year, and used BLT and dim light therapy (DLT) as intervention. The relative risk (RR) of BLT compared to DLT for perinatal depression is 1.46 (fixed effects model, p = 0.04, 95 % CI = [1.02, 2.10]), indicating a significant improvement in depression outcomes compared to DLT groups. The heterogeneity test yielded an I2 value of 41 % (p = 0.13), indicated a low degree of heterogeneity. Considering the small sample size, we conducted a sensitivity analysis, found RR increased to 2.33 (fixed effects model, p = 0.001, CI = 1.39–3.92). Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool showed only a single study was deemed high quality. This study indicates a beneficial impact of BLT on perinatal depression, subgroup analysis finds no significant mediation effects of different parameters after sensitivity analyses. It is recommended that future studies with larger samples be conducted to explore the effects of BLT on perinatal depression.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亮光治疗改善围产期抑郁症的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
明亮光疗法(BLT)在围产期抑郁症中的疗效仍未得到充分探讨。本荟萃分析旨在系统评估BLT治疗围产期抑郁症的有效性。我们对多个数据库进行了全面的文献检索,包括Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、PubMed、Embase、CNKI和临床试验注册平台,检索时间从每个数据库建立到2024年1月。采用Cochrane Collaboration的偏倚评估工具评估纳入研究的质量。采用Review Manager 5.3软件进行meta分析。6项试验纳入了167名被诊断为围产期抑郁症的参与者,所有试验均以英文发表,不限制发表年份,并采用BLT和昏暗光疗法(DLT)作为干预措施。与DLT组相比,BLT组围产期抑郁的相对危险度(RR)为1.46(固定效应模型,p = 0.04, 95% CI =[1.02, 2.10]),表明与DLT组相比,BLT组抑郁结局有显著改善。异质性检验的I2值为41% (p = 0.13),表明异质性程度较低。考虑到样本量小,我们进行了敏感性分析,发现RR增加到2.33(固定效应模型,p = 0.001, CI = 1.39 ~ 3.92)。Cochrane风险偏倚工具显示,只有一项研究被认为是高质量的。本研究提示BLT对围产期抑郁有有益影响,亚组分析经敏感性分析发现不同参数的中介作用不显著。我们建议未来进行更大样本的研究,以探索BLT对围产期抑郁的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychiatry Research
Psychiatry Research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
17.40
自引率
1.80%
发文量
527
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Psychiatry Research offers swift publication of comprehensive research reports and reviews within the field of psychiatry. The scope of the journal encompasses: Biochemical, physiological, neuroanatomic, genetic, neurocognitive, and psychosocial determinants of psychiatric disorders. Diagnostic assessments of psychiatric disorders. Evaluations that pursue hypotheses about the cause or causes of psychiatric diseases. Evaluations of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic psychiatric treatments. Basic neuroscience studies related to animal or neurochemical models for psychiatric disorders. Methodological advances, such as instrumentation, clinical scales, and assays directly applicable to psychiatric research.
期刊最新文献
Exploring cognitive symptoms in patients with unipolar and bipolar major depression: A comparative evaluation of subjective and objective performance Editorial Board Absence of nonfatal suicidal behavior preceding suicide death reveals differences in clinical risks A systematic review of the etiology and neurobiology of intermittent explosive disorder Mental health clinicians’ practices and perspectives of eating disorder apps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1