SynthesisPloS one2021
Binocular treatment for amblyopia: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effects of Monocular and Stereopsis Training on Visual Acuity and Stereoacuity in Children With Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Amblyopia in 2026: A State-of-the-Art Review of Multidimensional Phenotyping, Response Heterogeneity, and Clinical Considerations.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- "Look Versus See": Does Varying Fellow Eye Contrast Affect Perception of the Amblyopic Eye?Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs on Efficacy of Conventional vs. Emerging Treatments for Amblyopia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Perceptual Learning Therapy Using RevitalVision in Patching-Failed Amblyopia: Visual Outcomes, Predictors of Response, and Durability.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Differential Effects of Balanced and Imbalanced Binocular Stimulation on Visual Cortex Responses in Amblyopic Children.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Cone-Specific Filter-Based Neuromodulation: A Proposed Clinical Framework for Amblyopia, Strabismus, and ADHD.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Childhood amblyopia in a tertiary eye care center in western India.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The impact of autostereoscopic screens on assessing depth perception.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Refractive amblyopia among children aged 4-12 years in a hospital-based setting in Gaza Strip, Palestine.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2021Article
- The Evolution of Vision Therapy Software and Its Impact on Vision Care - A Comprehensive Major Review.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date, there is still no consensus regarding the effect of binocular treatment for amblyopia. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence to determine whether binocular treatment is more effective than patching in children with amblyopia.
methodsFour electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies that compared binocular treatment and patching in children with amblyopia. The outcome measures were visual acuity and stereopsis. Pooled effects sizes were calculated with a random-effect model. The standardized difference in means (SDM) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed.
resultsFive randomized clinical trials were included. No significant difference in visual acuity between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.45-0.20; P = 0.464). No significant difference in stereopsis between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.61-0.48; P = 0.809). For both variables, the between-study heterogeneity was high (respectively, I2 = 61% and I2 = 57%).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis found no convincing evidence supporting the efficacy of binocular treatment as an alternative to conventional patching. Therefore, the binocular treatment cannot fully replace traditional treatment but, to date, it can be considered a valid complementary therapy in peculiar cases. Further studies are required to determine whether more engaging therapies and new treatment protocols are more effective.
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.