ReviewBMJ clinical evidence2016
Amblyopia in children (aged 7 years or less).
Review in BMJ clinical evidence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Defining Success in Ptosis Surgery: Outcome Heterogeneity and Priorities for Standardization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Unilateral Oil Droplet Cataract in a Child: Importance of Early Detection and Intervention.Annals of African medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring Parental Views of Remote Vision Testing in Children.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Building capacity: paediatric vision screening in elementary schools.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Validation of the PlusOptix S12C for detecting amblyopia risk factors in a tertiary care young paediatric population.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Observational
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Parents Regarding Ophthalmological Screening of Preschool-Aged Children in Jazan, Saudi Arabia.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- Human neuronal maturation comes of age: cellular mechanisms and species differences.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024Review
- Article
- Evidence-based preschool-age vision screening: health policy considerations.Israel journal of health policy research · 2019Article
- LONG-TERM VARIABILITY OF STRABISMUS ANGLE IN NEUROLOGICALLY IMPAIRED PREMATURE INFANTS: A 12-YEAR FOLLOW UP.Acta clinica Croatica · 2019Article
- Threshold Values of Myopic Anisometropia Causing Loss of Stereopsis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Femtosecond LASER-Assisted Double Intraocular Lens Exchange in Nanophthalmic Eyes.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
- 'It's too late'. Is it really? Considerations for amblyopia treatment in older children.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAmblyopia is reduced visual acuity not immediately correctable by glasses, in the absence of ocular pathology. It is commonly associated with squint (strabismus) or refractive errors resulting in different visual inputs to each eye during the sensitive period of visual development (aged <7-8 years). The cumulative incidence is estimated at 2% to 4% in children aged up to 7 years. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of medical treatments for amblyopia in children aged 7 years or less? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
resultsAt this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 70 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 51 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 37 studies and the further review of 14 full publications. Of the 14 full articles evaluated, two systematic reviews were updated and three RCTs and two follow-up studies were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for nine PICO combinations.
conclusionsIn this systematic overview we categorised the efficacy for three interventions, based on information about the effectiveness and safety of glasses, occlusion, or penalisation with atropine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26731564PMC4701128What 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.