SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2020
Efficacy of interventions for amblyopia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of acupuncture combined therapies for amblyopia: efficacy and safety insights.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Binocular treatment for amblyopia: a systematic review.International ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- Amblyopia Preferred Practice Pattern.Ophthalmology · 2023Guideline
- 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
- Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for amblyopia treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Advances in behavioral vision training for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Video Game-Based Interventions for Visual Rehabilitation in Childhood Amblyopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs on Efficacy of Conventional vs. Emerging Treatments for Amblyopia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Recommendations for use and coverage of digital, binocular treatments for amblyopia.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Multi-Feature Mapping of Distortions in Amblyopia With Localized Sampling.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Are we any closer to optimising amblyopia treatment?Clinical and translational medicine · 2024Article
- Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A Social Media Listening Study to Understand the Unmet Needs and Quality of Life in Adult and Pediatric Amblyopia Patients.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Macular pigment optical density of hyperopic anisometropic amblyopic patients measured by fundus reflectometry.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia.
methodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included: refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) expressed as log MAR lines. Direct comparisons and a Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to synthesize data.
resultsTwenty-three studies with 3279 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, optical penalization was the least effective of all the treatments for the change of visual acuity, spectacles (mean difference [MD], 2.9 Log MAR lines; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.8-4.0), patch 2H (MD, 3.3; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.3), patch 6H (MD, 3.6; 95% CrI, 2.6-4.6), patch 12H (MD, 3.4; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.5), patch 2H + N (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.5-5.0), patch 2H + D (MD, 3.5; 95% CrI, 2.1-5.0), Atr daily (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly + Plano (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.7-4.7), binocular therapy (MD, 3.1; 95% CrI, 2.0-4.2). The patch 6H and patch 2H + N were better than spectacles ([MD, 0.73; 95% Crl, 0.10-1.40]; [MD, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.19-1.50]).
conclusionsThe NMA indicated that the efficacy of the most of the examined treatment modalities for amblyopia were comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019119843.
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.