CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-15). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2696 · Search date 2026-08-15 · Methodology v0.7

Lutein-zeaxanthin botanical formula,
does it really help with Reduced digital eye fatigue in adults using video displays?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 46 · Safety acceptable
Digital eye fatigue improved, but the evidence is one completer analysis with substantial attrition
No serious safety signal was reported over 90 days. Because this is a multi-botanical product, users with allergies or interacting medicines should review the full ingredient list.
What the
research shows
The grade is C with 46 points. A 360-person randomized trial analyzed only 303 completers, and eye-fatigue scores were lower than placebo at both 45 and 90 days for all three doses. However, no validated minimum important difference exists and the adjusted between-group effect and variance were not reported, so magnitude cannot be judged.
What the
ads claim
Containing lutein and zeaxanthin is a composition fact, but this trial evaluated one exact five-component formula. It does not establish that Korean lutein products contain the same blackcurrant, chrysanthemum, and goji doses.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The intervention combined lutein ester and zeaxanthin with water extracts of blackcurrant, chrysanthemum, and goji berry in seven chewable tablets daily.
  • The highest dose supplied 14 mg lutein, 2.8 mg zeaxanthin, 233 mg blackcurrant, 175 mg chrysanthemum, and 175 mg goji berry.
  • Verdict 1107 is D with 25 points for the same ingredients in cataract, while verdict 380 is C with 40 points for blackcurrant anthocyanins in VDT eye fatigue.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2696 · C 46
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

A single Chinese eye hospital randomized 360 adults equally to placebo or formula providing 6, 10, or 14 mg of lutein. The paper named eye-fatigue score, visuognosis persistence, macular pigment optical density, and Schirmer testing as primary outcomes and reported ChiCTR1800018987. Fifty-seven participants, 15.8%, were lost, leaving 303 in the per-protocol analysis. Funding came jointly from China's National Key R&D Program, the Chinese Nutrition Society research foundation, and Amway China. Funders and the principal investigator jointly conducted design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation; five authors were employees of Amway's Nutrilite Health Institute.

02

Why this is classified as C (46)

Patient-experienced eye fatigue improved significantly, but magnitude cannot be judged; one trial with substantial attrition, completer analysis, and joint public, nonprofit, and manufacturer support gives C with 46 points.

Counterpoint. This verdict is limited to the exact formula and digital eye fatigue; cataract, macular-disease prevention, and lutein alone are separate questions.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked the paper and registry identifier for primary outcomes, 360 randomized and 303 completer analyses, 57 losses, funder participation, and author employment

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeEXThe clinical size of the effect could not be judged
PrecisionCXNo pooled confidence interval could be confirmed

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
The formula reduces digital eye-fatigue scoresCAll six comparisons across three doses and two follow-ups were significant.
Lutein and zeaxanthin alone produce the same effect?The trial used a formula that also contained blackcurrant, chrysanthemum, and goji berry.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Kan J, Wang M, Liu Y, Liu H, Chen L, Zhang X, Huang C, Liu BY, Gu Z, Du J. 2020Single-center four-arm randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial76Mixed Chinese public R&D, Chinese Nutrition Society foundation, and Amway China funding; manufacturer supplied products and jointly participated in the studyEye-fatigue score and three other primary outcomes at days 45 and 90All six eye-fatigue comparisons were significant; adjusted between-group effect and variance not reportedSingle positive jointly funded trial with substantial attrition and completer analysis
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-15).

Kan J, Wang M, Liu Y, Liu H, Chen L, Zhang X, Huang C, Liu BY, Gu Z, Du J. A novel botanical formula improves eye fatigue and dry eye: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(2):334-342. PMID: 32542334. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa139. ChiCTR1800018987.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-15 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Lutein-zeaxanthin botanical formula x digital eye fatigue Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Lutein-zeaxanthin botanical formula x digital eye fatigue — Evidence Grade C·46. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/eye/lutein-zeaxanthin-botanical-formula-digital-eye-fatigue/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.