SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006
Interventions for stimulus deprivation amblyopia.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of interventions for amblyopia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Pooled it
- Occlusion for stimulus deprivation amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Occlusion for stimulus deprivation amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Amblyopia.BMJ clinical evidence · 2009Pooled it
- Effectiveness of screening preschool children for amblyopia: a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2009Pooled it
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006Pooled it
- The effects of unilateral deprivation amblyopia on fixation stability.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Is Patching after Age 4 Beneficial for Children Born with a Unilateral Congenital Cataract?Ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Patching in Children With Unilateral Congenital Cataract and Child Functioning and Parenting Stress.JAMA ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Retinal and Optic Nerve Integrity Following Monocular Inactivation for the Treatment of Amblyopia.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2020Article
- The role of Interactive Binocular Treatment system in amblyopia therapy.Journal of current ophthalmology · 2016Article
- The prevalence of amblyopia in Germany: data from the prospective, population-based Gutenberg Health Study.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- Photoscreeners in the pediatric eye office: compared testability and refractions on high-risk children.American journal of ophthalmology · 2014Article
- Global processing in amblyopia: a review.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Review
- Prevalence of Amblyopia and Refractive Errors Among Primary School Children.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
- Prevalence of amblyopia in primary school children in Qassim province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Middle East African journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the clear passage of light, preventing clear formation of an image on the retina for example, cataract, ptosis (droopy eyelid). It is particularly severe and can be resistant to treatment and the visual prognosis is often poor. Stimulus deprivation amblyopia is rare and precise estimates of prevalence difficult to come by; it probably constitutes less than 3% of all cases of amblyopia. In developed countries most patients present under the age of one; in less developed parts of the world presentation is likely to be significantly later than this.The mainstay of treatment is patching of the better-seeing eye but regimes vary, treatment is difficult to execute and results are often disappointing.
objectivesThe objectives of this review were to evaluate the effectiveness of occlusion treatment for SDA, determine the optimum treatment regime and factors that may affect outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1996 to April 2006), EMBASE (1980 to April 2006) and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences) (to November 2004). There were no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of subjects with unilateral SDA defined as worse than 0.2 LogMAR or equivalent. There were no restrictions with respect to age, gender, ethnicity, co-morbidities, medication use, and the number of participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study abstracts identified by the electronic searches. MAIN
resultsNo trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS'
conclusionsIt is not possible to conclude how effective treatment for SDA is or which treatment regime produces the best results. There is a need for further study in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.