5 ms·

A recent Cochrane review found very little high quality evidence in either direction: http://www.cochrane.org/CD011269/DEPRESSN_light-therapy-prevention-winter

by sambe 11y ago

A recent Cochrane review found very little high quality evidence in either direction: http://www.cochrane.org/CD011269/DEPRESSN_light-therapy-prevention-winter-depression http://www.cochrane.org/CD011269/DEPRESSN_light-therapy-prev... It's not clear to me why light therapy is considered as a well-researched treatment.

Loic 11y ago
From the review, they found 2986 unique papers on the subject, they then assessed 91 papers from the 2986. From these 91, only 1 had a rigorous double blind testing but on only 46 people. The exposures for the light source was 2500 lux, IR light and no special treatment. The results were not significant. So, lot-researched but maybe not well-enough researched.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  In other words, the statistical power of such studies is so low, that it's like social science at best: a galore of false positive over true positive effects.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  How do you go about blinding a study which does or does not shine a bright light in subject's faces?
  - MengerSponge 11y ago
    I'm guessing you vary the intensity and spectrum of the light. If the treatment doesn't show a dose-response curve of some kind, then it probably just doesn't work. Standard academic disclaimer applies: This isn't my field of study, and I'm sure there are many subtle mistakes in what I just said.
    - tacos 11y ago
      A quick Google confirms this: they use either an identical-looking light with a different response, or a different light altogether. "Here's a light, here's a sugar pill, log your mood please..." As silly as that all sounds, it's already a million times better than what this guy did. He took the "if a little is ineffective a LOT will be better" approach and built a damn lighthouse in his living room. And if the goal is a DIY project and a blog post, OF COURSE you'll feel better after "your treatment." It's approaching group therapy at that point. There's a lot of this crap on HN lately.
      - anarazel 11y ago
        So, it's crap that he's done something that made him feel better. Yea. It's not science. And yes, he very well might feel better just be because he did something he believes in. But I don't see why that warrants a response like yours.
        tacos 11y ago
        The article is entitled "You need more lumens" so he's already confronting me. The first paragraph disparages all existing commercial products and states, matter-of-factly that his approach is the one true way. The second paragraph states "Clinical studies have found that bright light treats SAD effectively" which is also a stretch. The article contains no research or sources except for a single Wikipedia link. It contains much hubris, yet no author's name. It does however contain numerous affiliate links. The article warrants a response like mine because the article is bullshit.
        shiven 11y ago
        Well, do you need more lumens? No, seriously. Do you? If not, then what is your point? Are you a SAD researcher with training and experience working with SAD? Or are you a SAD sufferer or have first-hand experience with SAD? If the answer to those questions is no, then you are starting to sound no different from the arrogant ignoramuses who think people with depression should just "get over it". This is HN and regardless of the scientific soundness of the post, it is a nifty hack. I might even make it. And use the affiliate links to show my appreciation of the person who made and shared the project. What's wrong with that? Perhaps you should question your assumptions before calling bullshit. What else are you missing out on in life with such an attitude?
moron4hire 11y ago
I'd put a black crow's feather behind my ear if I thought it would help me get through winter. In other words, placebo effect is still an effect. The treatment being chemically vs. psychologicaly responsible for that isn't a concern for the subject, only the researcher.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  The problem is that placebo effect is usually close to nil, when it even exists. Most of the time what is actually happening is regression to the mean, not placebo efficacy.
petra 11y ago
About systematic reviews and Cochrane : do they manage do see if there's a reasonable effect on a small group of people ? doesn't it get lost in the statistical analysis ?
foolrush 11y ago
Add to that The Influence of Color on Physiological Response, by S. Freiders, S. Lee, D. Statz, and T. Kim: “According to our analysis, the change in neural activity and heart rate between colored flowers and the grey-scaled flowers was insignificant.”
chillingeffect 11y ago
My contribution to anecdata is this: Parents bought me a 180W fluorescent (therefore 10800 to 18000 Lumens according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2 ) anti-SAD lamp. Stupidly, I used it as an evening lamp instead of anti-SAD. I had serious troubles getting to sleep for an entire year. Typically took 1-3 hours. Blamed coffee, stress, etc. Got blackout curtains, earplugs, cooled room temp, reduced coffee, etc. When I made the connection b/t falling asleep and the anti-SAD lamp, I stopped using it altogether and almost instantly started falling asleep rapidly. So I conclude my 10k-18k lumen lamp stimulated my awake cycle by about 1-3 hours. My suggestion therefore is: use the lamp at either end of the day in winter: just before sunrise and just after sunset. And certainly to shut it off 3 hours before bedtime. In practice this is tricky because the "unwanted dark hours" are 4:30pm to 7:30pm which is: at work, my commute home and first hour at home. So I need three lights, including one in the car?!

by sambe 11y ago

Loic 11y ago

From the review, they found 2986 unique papers on the subject, they then assessed 91 papers from the 2986. From these 91, only 1 had a rigorous double blind testing but on only 46 people. The exposures for the light source was 2500 lux, IR light and no special treatment. The results were not significant. So, lot-researched but maybe not well-enough researched.

ekianjo 11y ago
In other words, the statistical power of such studies is so low, that it's like social science at best: a galore of false positive over true positive effects.
bradleyjg 11y ago
How do you go about blinding a study which does or does not shine a bright light in subject's faces?
- MengerSponge 11y ago
  I'm guessing you vary the intensity and spectrum of the light. If the treatment doesn't show a dose-response curve of some kind, then it probably just doesn't work. Standard academic disclaimer applies: This isn't my field of study, and I'm sure there are many subtle mistakes in what I just said.
  - tacos 11y ago
    A quick Google confirms this: they use either an identical-looking light with a different response, or a different light altogether. "Here's a light, here's a sugar pill, log your mood please..." As silly as that all sounds, it's already a million times better than what this guy did. He took the "if a little is ineffective a LOT will be better" approach and built a damn lighthouse in his living room. And if the goal is a DIY project and a blog post, OF COURSE you'll feel better after "your treatment." It's approaching group therapy at that point. There's a lot of this crap on HN lately.
    - anarazel 11y ago
      So, it's crap that he's done something that made him feel better. Yea. It's not science. And yes, he very well might feel better just be because he did something he believes in. But I don't see why that warrants a response like yours.
      - tacos 11y ago
        The article is entitled "You need more lumens" so he's already confronting me. The first paragraph disparages all existing commercial products and states, matter-of-factly that his approach is the one true way. The second paragraph states "Clinical studies have found that bright light treats SAD effectively" which is also a stretch. The article contains no research or sources except for a single Wikipedia link. It contains much hubris, yet no author's name. It does however contain numerous affiliate links. The article warrants a response like mine because the article is bullshit.
        shiven 11y ago
        Well, do you need more lumens? No, seriously. Do you? If not, then what is your point? Are you a SAD researcher with training and experience working with SAD? Or are you a SAD sufferer or have first-hand experience with SAD? If the answer to those questions is no, then you are starting to sound no different from the arrogant ignoramuses who think people with depression should just "get over it". This is HN and regardless of the scientific soundness of the post, it is a nifty hack. I might even make it. And use the affiliate links to show my appreciation of the person who made and shared the project. What's wrong with that? Perhaps you should question your assumptions before calling bullshit. What else are you missing out on in life with such an attitude?

moron4hire 11y ago

I'd put a black crow's feather behind my ear if I thought it would help me get through winter. In other words, placebo effect is still an effect. The treatment being chemically vs. psychologicaly responsible for that isn't a concern for the subject, only the researcher.

ekianjo 11y ago
The problem is that placebo effect is usually close to nil, when it even exists. Most of the time what is actually happening is regression to the mean, not placebo efficacy.

petra 11y ago

About systematic reviews and Cochrane : do they manage do see if there's a reasonable effect on a small group of people ? doesn't it get lost in the statistical analysis ?

foolrush 11y ago

Add to that The Influence of Color on Physiological Response, by S. Freiders, S. Lee, D. Statz, and T. Kim: “According to our analysis, the change in neural activity and heart rate between colored flowers and the grey-scaled flowers was insignificant.”

chillingeffect 11y ago

My contribution to anecdata is this: Parents bought me a 180W fluorescent (therefore 10800 to 18000 Lumens according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2 ) anti-SAD lamp. Stupidly, I used it as an evening lamp instead of anti-SAD. I had serious troubles getting to sleep for an entire year. Typically took 1-3 hours. Blamed coffee, stress, etc. Got blackout curtains, earplugs, cooled room temp, reduced coffee, etc. When I made the connection b/t falling asleep and the anti-SAD lamp, I stopped using it altogether and almost instantly started falling asleep rapidly. So I conclude my 10k-18k lumen lamp stimulated my awake cycle by about 1-3 hours. My suggestion therefore is: use the lamp at either end of the day in winter: just before sunrise and just after sunset. And certainly to shut it off 3 hours before bedtime. In practice this is tricky because the "unwanted dark hours" are 4:30pm to 7:30pm which is: at work, my commute home and first hour at home. So I need three lights, including one in the car?!