Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27965802›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2015

Prescribed computer games in addition to occlusion versus standard occlusion treatment for childhood amblyopia: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Vijay K Tailor, Selina Glaze, Payal Khandelwal, Alison Davis, Gillian G W Adams, Wen Xing, Catey Bunce, Annegret Dahlmann-Noor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Interventions for improving adherence to amblyopia treatments in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Binocular amblyopia treatment with contrast-rebalanced movies.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2019
    Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Vijay K TailorNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD UK.
Selina GlazeMoorfields at Bedford Hospital NHS Trust, Kempston Road, Bedford, MK42 9DJ UK ; South Essex Partnership Foundation Trust, Enhanced Services Centre, 3 Kimbolton Road, Bedford, MK40 2NT UK.
Payal KhandelwalMoorfields at Bedford Hospital NHS Trust, Kempston Road, Bedford, MK42 9DJ UK ; South Essex Partnership Foundation Trust, Enhanced Services Centre, 3 Kimbolton Road, Bedford, MK40 2NT UK.
Alison DavisNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD UK.
Gillian G W AdamsNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD UK.
Wen XingNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD UK.
Catey BunceNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD UK.
Annegret Dahlmann-NoorNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD UK ; Moorfields at Bedford Hospital NHS Trust, Kempston Road, Bedford, MK42 9DJ UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmblyopia ("lazy eye") is the commonest vision deficit in children. If not fully corrected by glasses, amblyopia is treated by patching or blurring the better-seeing eye. Compliance with patching is often poor. Computer-based activities are increasingly topical, both as an adjunct to standard treatment and as a platform for novel treatments. Acceptability by families has not been explored, and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) using computer games in terms of recruitment and treatment acceptability is uncertain.

methodsWe carried out a pilot RCT to test whether computer-based activities are acceptable and accessible to families and to test trial methods such as recruitment and retention rates, randomisation, trial-specific data collection tools and analysis. The trial had three arms: standard near activity advice, Eye Five, a package developed for children with amblyopia, and an off-the-shelf handheld games console with pre-installed games. We enrolled 60 children age 3-8 years with moderate or severe amblyopia after completion of optical treatment.

resultsThis trial was registered as UKCRN-ID 11074. Pre-screening of 3600 medical notes identified 189 potentially eligible children, of whom 60 remained eligible after optical treatment, and were enrolled between April 2012 and March 2013. One participant was randomised twice and withdrawn from the study. Of the 58 remaining, 37 were boys. The mean (SD) age was 4.6 (1.7) years. Thirty-seven had moderate and 21 severe amblyopia. Three participants were withdrawn at week 6, and in total, four were lost to follow-up at week 12. Most children and parents/carers found the study procedures, i.e. occlusion treatment, usage of the allocated near activity and completion of a study diary, easy. The prescribed cumulative dose of near activity was 84 h at 12 weeks. Reported near activity usage numbers were close to prescribed numbers in moderate amblyopes (94 % of prescribed) but markedly less in severe amblyopes (64 %). Reported occlusion usage at 12 weeks was 90 % of prescribed dose for moderate and 33 % for severe amblyopes.

conclusionsComputer-based games and activities appear acceptable to families as part of their child's amblyopia treatment. Trial methods were appropriate and accepted by families.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaChildClinical trial

Identifiers

PMID27965802
PMCPMC5154044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.