SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Efficacy of vision-based treatments for children and teens with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis 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 23 papers, 4 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Binocular treatment for amblyopia: a systematic review.International ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- Brazilian best practice guidelines for amblyopia diagnosis and management.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2024Guideline
- Computer-Assisted Visual Training in Children and Adolescents with Developmental Visual Disorders.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Binocular Vision Anomalies: An Update on Prevalence, Impact, Technological and Treatment Developments and Current Challenges.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Recovery of depth perception in adults with abnormal binocular vision.Vision research · 2026Article
- Amblyopia in 2026: A State-of-the-Art Review of Multidimensional Phenotyping, Response Heterogeneity, and Clinical Considerations.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs on Efficacy of Conventional vs. Emerging Treatments for Amblyopia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Distribution and Patterns of Refractive Errors in a Pediatric Amblyopic Cohort Aged 3-5 Years: A Descriptive Study in a Pakistani Tertiary Eye Care Center.Clinical optometry · 2026Article
- Obesity and physical activity in children with early vision problems: a secondary analysis of data from the Growing-Up in Ireland study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Assessing Previous Strategies and Presenting a Novel Smart Glasses to Enhance Adherence to Amblyopia Therapy in Children.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- Harnessing brain plasticity to improve binocular vision in amblyopia: An evidence-based update.European journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Associations between the cause of amblyopia and pre-treatment contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, fixation, and nystagmus.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Acceleration of spontaneous visual recovery by voluntary physical exercise in adolescent amblyopic rats.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Article
- Current Developments in the Management of Amblyopia with the Use of Perceptual Learning Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Applications and implications for extended reality to improve binocular vision and stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Effects of Vision Therapy on Bilateral Amblyopia Unresponsive to Conventional Treatment: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Contrast Sensitivity and Stereoacuity in Successfully Treated Refractive Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4-17 years old. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Embase, PubMed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, Vision Cite and Scopus were systematically searched from 1975 to 17 June 2020.
methodsTwo independent reviewers screened search results for randomised controlled trials of vision-based amblyopia treatments that specified change in amblyopic eye VA (logMAR) as the primary outcome measure. Quality was assessed via risk of bias and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations).
resultsOf the 3346 studies identified, 36 were included in a narrative synthesis. A random effects meta-analysis (five studies) compared the efficacy of binocular treatments versus patching: mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04 (p<0.001), favouring patching. An exploratory study-level regression (18 studies) showed no statistically significant differences between vision-based treatments and a reference group of 2-5 hours of patching. Age, sample size and pre-randomisation optical treatment were not statistically significantly associated with changes in amblyopic eye acuity. A network meta-analysis (26 studies) comparing vision-based treatments to patching 2-5 hours found one statistically significant comparison, namely, the favouring of a combination of two treatment arms comparing combination and binocular treatments, against patching 2-5 hours: standard mean difference: 2.63; 95% CI 1.18 to 4.09. However, this result was an indirect comparison calculated from a single study. A linear regression analysis (17 studies) found a significant relationship between adherence and effect size, but the model did not completely fit the data: regression coefficient 0.022; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.040 (p=0.02).
conclusionWe found no clinically relevant differences in treatment efficacy between the treatments included in this review. Adherence to the prescribed hours of treatment varied considerably and may have had an effect on treatment success.
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.