Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26263202›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years.

Vijay Tailor, Manuela Bossi, Catey Bunce, John A Greenwood, Annegret Dahlmann-Noor

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03655912 (Binocular Visual Therapy and Video Games for Amblyopia Treatment.), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03655912 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Binocular Visual Therapy and Video Games for Amblyopia Treatment.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad Autonoma de Nuevo LeonRan2018 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsAmblyopiaArmsRed/green glasses, Electronic Tablet, Eye patch
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vijay TailorNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, UK, EC1V 2PD.
Manuela Bossi
Catey Bunce
John A Greenwood
Annegret Dahlmann-Noor
University College London · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K024817/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent treatments for amblyopia in children, occlusion and pharmacological blurring, have had limited success, with less than two-thirds of children achieving good visual acuity of at least 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor compliance. A new treatment approach, based on the dichoptic presentation of movies or computer games (images presented separately to each eye), may yield better results, as it aims to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain. Compliance may also improve with these more child-friendly treatment procedures.

objectivesTo determine whether binocular treatments in children aged three to eight years with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional occlusion or pharmacological blurring treatment. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (last date of searches: 14 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search in order to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled participants between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia, defined as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, and BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. Prior to enrolment, participants were to have undergone a cycloplegic refraction and comprehensive ophthalmic examination including fundal examination. In addition, participants had to have completed a period of optical treatment, if indicated, and BCVA in the amblyopic eye had to remain unchanged on two consecutive assessments despite reportedly good compliance with glasses wearing. Participants were not to have received any treatment other than optical treatment prior to enrolment. We planned to include any type of binocular viewing intervention; these could be delivered on different devices including computer monitors viewed with LCD shutter glasses or hand-held screens including mobile phone screens with lenticular prism overlay. Control groups were to have received standard amblyopia treatment; this could include occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We planned to include full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) occlusion regimens. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We had planned to meta-analyse the primary outcome, that is mean distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye at 12 months after the cessation of treatment. MAIN

resultsWe could identify no RCTs in this subject area. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFurther research is required to allow decisions about implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice. Currently there are no clinical trials offering standardised evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatments, but results from non-controlled cohort studies are encouraging. Future research should be conducted in the form of RCTs, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility. Other important outcome measures include outcomes reported by users, compliance with treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaChildChild, PreschoolHumans

Identifiers

PMID26263202
PMCPMC6718221
OpenAlexW2156556508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.