Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Can Rhodiola rosea supplementation mitigate digital eye strain? A triple-blinded placebo-controlled study.
Trial report in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Can Rhodiola rosea supplementation mitigate digital eye strain? A triple-blinded placebo-controlled study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the impact of Rhodiola rosea (RR) supplementation on the dynamics of the accommodative response and digital eye strain (DES) symptoms following 30-min visual tasks with different levels of cognitive demand.
methodsEighteen young adults (mean age ± SD: 24.6 ± 4.0 years) participated in this placebo-controlled, triple-blind, balanced crossover study. Participants completed four sessions separated by 1 week in a randomised order. The sessions differed in the supplement (RR or placebo) and cognitive demand of the visual task (Stroop test or control video). The supplementation consisted of 1200 mg of RR or placebo per day for 4 days (two 300 mg capsules every 12 h) and a washout period of 3 days was allowed before the subsequent condition. The lag and variability of the accommodative response were measured at 500, 40 and 20 cm using an open-field autorefractor, and DES symptoms were assessed using a 10-item questionnaire.
resultsRR supplementation caused a reduction in the variability of accommodation (p = 0.007) and the perceived levels of 'Blurred vision when looking into the distance at the end of the near task' (p = 0.009). However, the lag of accommodation (p = 0.15) and the remainder of the DES symptoms were unaffected by the ingestion of RR (p > 0.05 in all cases). The reduction in the variability of accommodation after RR intake was observed at 40 and 20 cm (p-values <0.001 and 0.04, respectively), but not at far distance (500 cm, p = 0.40).
conclusionsThese findings show that RR supplementation (1200 mg/day for 4 days) produced a reduction in the variability of accommodation and one of the assessed DES symptoms, suggesting that it could be considered as a potential strategy to prevent or manage DES. However, further research is needed to determine its clinical relevance and optimise dosage and timing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.