Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33718612›Full record

ReviewBMJ open ophthalmology2021

Comparison between binocular therapy and patching for treatment of amblyopia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Chun-Wen Chen, Qin Zhu, Yu-Bing Duan, Jing-Yan Yao

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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.

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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Amblyopia: progress and promise of functional magnetic resonance imaging.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chun-Wen ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Qin ZhuDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Yu-Bing DuanDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Jing-Yan YaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9925-5841
Soochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies have compared binocular therapy and patching for the treatment of amblyopia. However, most of them involved a small number of cases and reported controversial results. Thus, the benefit of binocular therapy remains to be confirmed. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of binocular therapy versus patching and to testify whether binocular therapy could become supplementary method in children with amblyopia. Randomised controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of binocular therapy for amblyopia versus patching were identified using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Data screening, extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two researchers. Six trials were identified and analysed to compare binocular therapy (708 eyes) with patching (664 eyes) for change in best-corrected visual acuity and stereoacuity. Efficacy estimates were evaluated by standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. The best-corrected visual acuity in binocular group was better than that of in patching group (SMD=-0.21 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (log MAR), 95% CI of -0.50 to 0.08 log MAR, p=0.003). The results showed statistically significant difference in the change of best-corrected visual acuity between the groups, but not in stereoacuity. Binocular therapy may be a promising treatment of conditions affecting visual acuity, and could be applied as a supplementary method to patching for amblyopia in clinical practice. The present analysis showed that some children with amblyopia may benefit from binocular therapy. Nevertheless, larger randomised controlled clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

low vision aidpublic healthtreatment medicalvisionvisual perception

Identifiers

PMID33718612
PMCPMC7908277
OpenAlexW3133314430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.