Attenuating Photostress and Glare Disability in Pseudophakic Patients through the Addition of a Short-Wave Absorbing Filter

Table 3

Studies on blue-light intraocular filters and visual benefit.

Study	Sample	Design	Supplement	Variables	Effect size value (relation to MP, IOL, or sup)
Blue-light filtering IOLs
Gray et al.,; 2011 [15]	34 adults	Case-control	n/a	GD in a driving simulator	0.0008 versus clear IOLs
Gray et al.,; 2012 [16]	33 adults	Case-control	n/a	GD in a driving simulator	0.05 versus clear IOLs
Hammond et al.,; 2009 [17]	58 adults	Case-control	n/a	Glare disability	0.02 versus clear IOLs
Hammond et al.,; 2009 [17]	58 adults	Case-control	n/a	PS recovery	0.01 versus clear IOLs
Hammond et al.,; 2010 [18]	52 adults	Contralateral; Comparison	n/a	GD	0.04 versus clear IOLs
Hammond et al.,; 2010 [18]	52 adults	Contralateral; Comparison	n/a	PS recovery	0.02 versus clear IOLs
Hammond et al.,; 2010 [18]	52 adults	Contralateral; Comparison	n/a	Chromatic contrast	0.00003 versus clear IOLs
K. Hayashi and H. Hayashi,; 2006 [19]	74 adults	Case-control	n/a	CSF under glare	Null
Muftuoglu et al.,; 2007 [20]	38 adults	Case-control	n/a	GD	Null
Neumaier-Ammerer et al.,; 2010 [21]	76 adults	Case-control	n/a	CSF under glare	Null
Niwa et al.,; 1996 [22]	64 adults	Case-control	n/a	CSF under glare	0.025
Pandita et al.,; 2007 [23]	120 adults	Case-control	n/a	CSF under glare	Photopic = 0.005,; Mesopic = 0.01
Macular pigment
Hammond et al.,; 2013 [24]	150 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	Glare disability	0.0015
Hammond et al.,; 2013 [24]	150 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	PS recovery	0.01
Hammond et al.,; 2013 [24]	150 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	Chromatic contrast	0.00005
Hammond et al.,; 2014 [25]	109 adults	RCT	12 mg/1 year	PS recovery	0.01
Hammond et al.,; 2014 [25]	109 adults	RCT	12 mg/1 year	GD	0.21
Hammond et al.,; 2014 [25]	109 adults	RCT	12 mg/1 year	Chromatic contrast	0.03
Kvansakul et al.,; 2006 [26]	34 adults	RCT	3 arms of L and Z	Intraocular scatter	+ for L (no reported)
Loughman et al.,; 2012 [27]	36 adults	RCT	24 subjects on L, Z, MZ	VA and CSF measured under glare	0.006
Loughman et al.,; 2010 [28]	142 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	VA and CSF measured under glare, PS recovery	Null
Nolan et al.,; 2011 [29]	121 adults	RCT	13 mg, one year	CSF under glare	0.05
Olmedilla et al.,; 2003 [30]	17 elderly cataracts patients	RCT	12 mg, 2 yrs	Glare sensitivity	0.005
Renzi and Hammond,; 2010 [31]	50 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	Chromatic contrast	0.0001
Richer et al.,; 2004 [32]	90 v, dry AMD patients	RCT	3 arms, ~10 mg L, one year	Glare questions	0.10 (ns)
Richer et al.,; 2011 [33]	60 dry AMD patients	RCT	L 9 mg, one year	Glare recovery	0.01
Stringham and Hammond,; 2007 [34]	36 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	GD, PS recovery	0.0001
Stringham and Hammond,; 2008 [35]	40 adults	Intervention (no placebo)	12 mg/6 mos	GD, PS recovery	0.0001
Stringham et al.,; 2011 [36]	26 adults	Cross-sectional	n/a	CSF measured under glare, PS recovery	0.0001
Yao et al.,; 2013 [37]	120 adults	RCT	20 mg L, one year	CSF under glare, glare Qs	CSF (0.05),; Qs (0.01, 0.03)

CSF: contrast sensitivity function; GD: glare disability threshold; PS: photostress; RCT: placebo-controlled randomized trial.
All patients were adults. These studies used glare sources (halogen or tungsten) with little or no short-wave energy and/or clinical tests with low discriminative ability [38].