Meta-analysis of visual fatigue based on visual display terminals

Abstract

Background: This study aims to explore the impact of using visual display terminal (VDT) on the visual fatigue of operators through meta-analysis.

Methods: The terms "VDT", "visual fatigue", "eyestrain", and "viewing distance" were selected from the Wangfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Web of Science, Springer, and Science Direct online databases. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to the present. All clinical studies related to the analysis of the effects of VDT use on visual fatigue were available. The included studies were screened, and after quality assessment, basic data and outcome index data were extracted. The count data were represented by relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The measurement data were represented by the mean value (MD), standard deviation (SD), and 95% CI. Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan5.3) was employed to analyze the included indicators. Funnel plots were drawn using RevMan5.3 to analyze potential publication bias. The incidence of visual fatigue, lens use time, blink interval, and other indicators were compared between the VDT group and the control (Ctrl) group. Meanwhile, the incidence of eye fatigue and blurred vision in the two groups was counted.

Result: The incidence of eye pain, fatigue, blurred vision, teary eyes, and dry eyes in the VDT group significantly exceeded that in the Ctrl group. Meanwhile, the dry eye score, as well as the scores for eye fatigue, discomfort, and blurred vision, were significantly higher in the VDT group compared to the Ctrl group.

Conclusions: The results indicate that the use of VDT has a significant impact on visual fatigue.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Prognosis assessment; Visual display terminal; Visual fatigue.

Fig. 1

Basic process of document retrieval

Fig. 2

Forest chart comparing the incidence of eye pain between the two groups

Fig. 3

Forest plot comparing the incidence of eye strain between the two groups

Fig. 4

Forest map comparing the incidence of blurred vision between the two groups

Fig. 5

Forest map comparing the unclear focus and myopia incidence between the two groups

Fig. 6

Forest map for comparison of the incidence of diplopia and ocular redness between the two groups

Fig. 7

Forest map for comparison of incidence of teary eyes and dry eyes between the two groups

Fig. 8

Funnel plot for analysis of publication bias of included articles