ENLIGHT: A consensus checklist for reporting laboratory-based studies on the non-visual effects of light in humans

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Summary

Background

There is no consensus on reporting light characteristics in studies investigating non-visual responses to light. This project aimed to develop a reporting checklist for laboratory-based investigations on the impact of light on non-visual physiology.

Methods

A four-step modified Delphi process (three questionnaire-based feedback rounds and one face-to-face group discussion) involving international experts was conducted to reach consensus on the items to be included in the checklist. Following the consensus process, the resulting checklist was tested in a pilot phase with independent experts.

Findings

An initial list of 61 items related to reporting light-based interventions was condensed to a final checklist containing 25 items, based upon consensus among experts (final n = 60). Nine items were deemed necessary to report regardless of research question or context. A description of each item is provided in the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. The independent pilot testing phase led to minor textual clarifications in the checklist and E&E document.

Interpretation

The ENLIGHT Checklist is the first consensus-based checklist for documenting and reporting ocular light-based interventions for human studies. The implementation of the checklist will enhance the impact of light-based research by ensuring comprehensive documentation, enhancing reproducibility, and enabling data aggregation across studies.

Funding

Network of European Institutes for Advanced Study (NETIAS) Constructive Advanced Thinking (CAT) programme; Sir Henry doi 10.13039/100004440, Wellcome; Postdoctoral Fellowship (Wellcome Trust, 204686/Z/16/Z); doi 10.13039/501100001826, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development; VENI fellowship (2020–09150161910128); doi 10.13039/100000005, U.S. Department of Defense; Grant (W81XWH-16-1-0223); doi 10.13039/501100001352, National University of Singapore; (NUHSRO/2022/038/Startup/08); and doi 10.13039/501100001381, National Research Foundation Singapore; (NRF2022-THE004-0002).

Related collections

Most cited references 35

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

Ivan Diamond, Robert C Grant, Brian Feldman … (2014)

To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 908 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications

Chitu Okoli, Suzanne Pawlowski (2004)

0 comments Cited 852 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity.

S. Hattar, H. Liao, M Takao … (2002)

The primary circadian pacemaker, in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the mammalian brain, is photoentrained by light signals from the eyes through the retinohypothalamic tract. Retinal rod and cone cells are not required for photoentrainment. Recent evidence suggests that the entraining photoreceptors are retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) that project to the SCN. The visual pigment for this photoreceptor may be melanopsin, an opsin-like protein whose coding messenger RNA is found in a subset of mammalian RGCs. By cloning rat melanopsin and generating specific antibodies, we show that melanopsin is present in cell bodies, dendrites, and proximal axonal segments of a subset of rat RGCs. In mice heterozygous for tau-lacZ targeted to the melanopsin gene locus, beta-galactosidase-positive RGC axons projected to the SCN and other brain nuclei involved in circadian photoentrainment or the pupillary light reflex. Rat RGCs that exhibited intrinsic photosensitivity invariably expressed melanopsin. Hence, melanopsin is most likely the visual pigment of phototransducing RGCs that set the circadian clock and initiate other non-image-forming visual functions.

0 comments Cited 347 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Manuel Spitschan

Laura Kervezee

Renske Lok

Elise McGlashan

Raymond P. Najjar

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): eBioMedicine

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): EBioMedicine

Title: eBioMedicine

Publisher: Elsevier

ISSN (Electronic): 2352-3964

Publication date PMC-release: 02 December 2023

Publication date Collection: December 2023

Publication date (Electronic): 02 December 2023

Volume: 98

Electronic Location Identifier: 104889

Affiliations

[a ]TUM School of Medicine & Health, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

[b ]TUM Institute for Advanced Study (TUM-IAS), Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany

[c ]Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Research Group Translational Sensory & Circadian Neuroscience, Tübingen, Germany

[d ]TUMCREATE, Singapore, Singapore

[e ]Laboratory for Neurophysiology, Department of Cellular and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

[f ]Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, USA

[g ]Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

[h ]School of Psychological Science and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

[i ]Department of Ophthalmology and Department of Biomedical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

[j ]Center for Innovation & Precision Eye Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

[k ]Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore

[l ]Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

Author notes

[∗ ]Corresponding author. TUM School of Medicine & Health, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. manuel.spitschan@ 123456tum.de

[∗∗ ]Corresponding author. Laboratory for Neurophysiology, Department of Cellular and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. L.Kervezee@ 123456lumc.nl

[∗∗∗ ]Corresponding author. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. rlok@ 123456stanford.edu

[∗∗∗∗ ]Corresponding author. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. elise.mcglashan@ 123456unimelb.edu.au

[∗∗∗∗∗ ]Corresponding author. Department of Ophthalmology and Department of Biomedical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. rpnajjar@ 123456nus.edu.sg

[m]

Equal contribution.

[n]

The full list of ENLIGHT Consortium members can be found in Supplemental Table S2 of this manuscript.

Article

Publisher Item ID: S2352-3964(23)00455-3 Publisher ID: 104889

DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104889

PMC ID: 10704221

PubMed ID: 38043137

SO-VID: 918ec13b-a770-432e-8460-0e168ac9256b

License:

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

ENLIGHT: A consensus checklist for reporting laboratory-based studies on the non-visual effects of light in humans

Read this article at

Summary

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Related collections

Laboratory Phonology

Most cited references 35

Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications

Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 37

Cited by 13

Most referenced authors 233