Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007
Objectively monitored patching regimens for treatment of amblyopia: randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00274664 (Randomised Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 61 papers, 12 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.
Randomised Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study (ROTAS): Trial of Maximal Vs Substantial Doses of Occlusion to Evaluate Visual Outcome for Children With Amblyopia
Who cites it
61 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for improving adherence to amblyopia treatments in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of vision-based treatments for children and teens with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- The challenges of amblyopia treatment.Biomedical journal · 2015Pooled it
- Interventions for strabismic amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Occlusion for stimulus deprivation amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Interventions for unilateral and bilateral refractive amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Effect of age on response to amblyopia treatment in children.Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) · 2011Pooled it
- Amblyopia.BMJ clinical evidence · 2011Pooled it
- Amblyopia.BMJ clinical evidence · 2009Pooled it
- Analysis of patient adherence to emerging treatment tools for improving visual functions in amblyopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of optometryPooled it
- Baseline and Clinical Factors Associated with Response to Amblyopia Treatment in a Randomized Clinical Trial.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2020Trial
- A Randomized Trial of Binocular Dig Rush Game Treatment for Amblyopia in Children Aged 7 to 12 Years.Ophthalmology · 2019Trial
- A Randomized Trial of a Binocular iPad Game Versus Part-Time Patching in Children Aged 13 to 16 Years With Amblyopia.American journal of ophthalmology · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Are amblyopia therapy outcomes related to socioeconomic situation for children in Greater Manchester?Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs on Efficacy of Conventional vs. Emerging Treatments for Amblyopia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Binocular Approaches in Amblyopia Treatment Based on Dichoptic StimulationTurkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare visual outcome in response to two prescribed rates of occlusion (six hours a day and 12 hours a day).
designUnmasked randomised trial.
settingResearch clinics in two London hospitals.
participants97 children with a confirmed diagnosis of amblyopia associated with strabismus, anisometropia, or both.
interventions18 week period of wearing glasses (refractive adaptation) followed by occlusion prescribed ("patching") for six or 12 hours a day.
main outcome measuresVisual acuity measured by logMAR letter recognition; objectively monitored rate of occlusion (hours a day).
resultsThe mean age of children at study entry was 5.6 (SD 1.5) years. Ninety were eligible for occlusion but 10 dropped out in this phase, leaving 80 children who were randomised to a prescribed dose rate of six (n=40) or 12 (n=40) hours a day. The mean change in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was not significantly different (P=0.64) between the two groups (0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.31) log units in six hour group; 0.24 (0.19 to 0.29) log units in 12 hour group). The mean dose rates (hours a day) actually received, however, were also not significantly different (4.2 (3.7 to 4.7) in six hour group v 6.2 (5.1 to 7.3) in 12 hour group; P=0.06). The visual outcome was similar for those children who received three to six hours a day or more than six to 12 hours a day, but significantly better than that in children who received less than three hours a day. Children aged under 4 required significantly less occlusion than older children. Visual outcome was not influenced by type of amblyopia.
conclusionsSubstantial (six hours a day) and maximal (12 hours a day) prescribed occlusion results in similar visual outcome. On average, the occlusion dose received in the maximal group was only 50% more than in the substantial group and in both groups was much less than that prescribed. Younger children required the least occlusion. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00274664.
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.