Methods: The accuracy of Webgazer.js for software-based gaze tracking is tested under different lighting conditions. Predefined time delays of a prototype diagnosis task automation script are contrasted against with manual delays based on human time estimation to understand how automation influences diagnosis accuracy. SLI diagnosis binary classifier was built and tested based on randomised parameters. The obtained results were cross-compared to Singlims_ES.exe for equality.
Results: Webgazer.js achieved an average accuracy of 88.755% under global lighting conditions, 61.379% under low lighting conditions and 52.7% under face-focused lighting conditions. The diagnosis task automation script found to execute with actual time delays with a deviation percentage no more than 0.04%, while manually executing time delays based on human time estimation resulted in a deviation percentage of not more than 3.37%. One-tailed test probability value produced by both the newly built classifier and Singlims_ES were observed to be similar up to three decimal places.
Conclusion: The results obtained should serve as a foundation for further evaluation of computer tools to help speech language pathologists diagnose SLI.
METHODS: This was a primary school-based cross-sectional study using multistage cluster sampling, conducted at Bau district in Sarawak, Malaysia in 40 primary schools. A questionnaire was used to collect information of usage pattern in insufficient lighting, timing and position. The physical and behavioural complaints were traced. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 22. A p-value < 0.05 with 95% CI was considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS: About 52.8% of the 569 students used digital devices in a bright room, 69.8% in the day time and 54.4% in sitting position. The physical complaints were headache (32.9%), neck, shoulder and back pain (32.9%) followed by by eye strain (31.8%). Regarding behavioural problems, 25.7% of the students had loss of interest in study and outdoor activities (20.7%), skipped meals (19.0%) and arguments/disagreements with parents (17.9%). After logistic regression analysis, the lying position (OR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.096, 2.688) and darkroom lighting (OR=2.323 95% CI: 1.138, 4.744) appeared to be potential predictors of the complaint.
CONCLUSION: One-quarter of the students studied experienced physical complaints, and one-fifth had behavioural problems associated with the use of electronic devices. Lying position and darkroom lighting are the potential predictors of complaints. Therefore, we suggest that the children should use electronic devices in the sitting position with adequate room lighting.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of reflective materials in combination with phototherapy compared with phototherapy alone for unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 1 November 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials if the participants, who were term or preterm infants, received phototherapy with curtains made of reflective materials of any type in the treatment arm, and if those in the comparison arm received similar phototherapy without curtains or other intensified phototherapy, such as a double bank of lights.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Of 15 studies identified, we included 12 (1288 babies) in the review - 11 comparing phototherapy with reflective materials and phototherapy alone, and one comparing a single phototherapy light bank with reflective materials with double phototherapy. All reflective materials consisted of curtains on three or four sides of the cot and were made of white plastic (five studies), white linen (two studies), or aluminium (three studies); materials were not specified in two studies. Only 11 studies (10 comparing reflective materials versus none and one comparing reflective curtains and a single bank of lights with a double (above and below) phototherapy unit) provided sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. Two excluded studies used the reflective materials in a way that did not meet our inclusion criteria, and we excluded one study because it compared four different phototherapy interventions not including reflective materials. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies (281 participants) reported a decline in serum bilirubin (SB) (μmol/L) at four to eight hours (mean difference (MD) -14.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -19.80 to -9.42; I² = 57%; moderate-certainty evidence). Nine studies (893 participants) reported a decline in SB over 24 hours and showed a faster decline in SB in the intervention group, but heterogeneity (I² = 97%) was too substantial to permit a meaningful estimate of the actual effect size (very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by type of reflective material used did not explain the heterogeneity. Exchange transfusion was reported by two studies; both reported none in either group. Four studies (466 participants) reported the mean duration of phototherapy, and in each of these studies, it was reduced in the intervention group but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² = 88%), precluding meaningful meta-analysis of data. The only two studies that reported the mean duration of hospital stay in hours showed a meaningful reduction (MD -41.08, 95% CI -45.92 to -36.25; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported costs of the intervention, parental or medical staff satisfaction, breastfeeding outcomes, or neurodevelopmental follow-up. The only study that compared use of curtains with double phototherapy reported similar results for both groups. Studies that monitored adverse events did not report increased adverse events related to the use of curtains, including acute life-threatening events, but other rarer side effects could not be excluded.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the use of reflective curtains during phototherapy may result in greater decline in SB. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the duration of phototherapy is reduced, and moderate-certainty evidence shows that the duration of hospital stay is also reduced. Available evidence does not show any increase in adverse events, but further studies are needed.
METHODS: Sixty young adults (21-25 years) and 60 schoolchildren (8-12 years) were recruited. Accommodative lag and accommodative fluctuations at far (6 m) and near (25 cm) were measured using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor. The effects of mesopic room illumination on accommodation were also investigated.
RESULTS: Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that accommodative lag at far and near differed significantly between schoolchildren and young adults [F(1.219, 35.354) = 11.857, p 0.05). Accommodative lag and fluctuations were greater under mesopic room conditions for all ages [all p
Methods: A child-sized mannequin head was developed to measure light illuminance levels with and without sun-protective equipment, across a wide range of environments in Singapore, outdoors (open park, under a tree, street) and indoors (under a fluorescent illumination with window, under white LED-based lighting without window). A comparison was made between indoor and outdoor light levels that are experienced while children are involved in day-to-day activities.
Results: Outdoor light levels were much higher (11,080-18,176 lux) than indoors (112-156 lux). The higher lux levels protective of myopia (>1000 lux) were measured at the tree shade (5556-7876 lux) and with hat (4112-8156 lux). Sunglasses showed lux levels between 1792 and 6800 lux. Although with sunglasses readings were lower than tree shade and hat, light levels were still 11 to 43 times higher than indoors.
Conclusions: Recommendations on spending time outdoors for myopia prevention with adequate sun protection should be provided while partaking in outdoor activities, including protection under shaded areas, wearing a hat or sunglasses, sunscreen, and adequate hydration.
Translational Relevance: Light levels outdoors were higher than indoors and above the threshold illuminance for myopia prevention even with adequate sun-protective measures.