ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2022
Contrast Sensitivity and Stereoacuity in Successfully Treated Refractive Amblyopia.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extending Treatment Duration in Perceptual Learning for Amblyopia.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Factors influencing refractive status distribution and amblyopia in preschool children with low vision.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Active Vision Therapy in Children with Bilateral Refractive Amblyopia.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2026Article
- Effect of active vision therapy on contrast sensitivity in bilateral amblyopia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Neurophysiological basis for visual distortions in amblyopia.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Correlation Between Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function and Spherical Equivalent Under Uncorrected and Corrected Conditions in Children with Ametropia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Regaining Visual Acuity Does Not Restore Motion Extrapolation Deficits in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Dynamic Stereopsis Is Abnormal in Treated Anisometropic Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Breaking and restoring ocular balance: Temporal interactions in binocular rivalry and stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Surgical Realignment Reverses Contrast Sensitivity Deficits in Children With Intermittent Exotropia: One-Year Results of a Cohort Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Binocular and Fellow Eye Acuity Deficits in Amblyopia: Impact of Fixation Instability and Sensory Factors.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Validation of Angular Indication Measurement (AIM) Stereoacuity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Contextual Binocular Imbalance Impairs Local Stereopsis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Fixation Stability Deficits in Anisometropic Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Low-concentration atropine (0.01%) on quantitative contrast sensitivity function in Chinese children with myopia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Psychophysical assessment of face perception deficits in adults with amblyopia through top-down and bottom-up visual processing pathways.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Role of Visual Performance in Fine Motor Skills.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Novel Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function Enhances the Prediction of Treatment Outcome and Recurrence in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Associations between the cause of amblyopia and pre-treatment contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, fixation, and nystagmus.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Reduced Monocular Luminance Promotes Fusion But Not Mixed Perception in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess whether monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity impairments remain when visual acuity is fully recovered in children with refractive amblyopia. Methods: A retrospective review of 487 patients diagnosed with refractive amblyopia whose visual acuity improved to 0.08 logMAR or better in both eyes following optical treatment was conducted. Measurements of monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity had been made when visual acuity normalized. All patients had been treated with refractive correction for approximately 2 years following diagnosis. No other treatments were provided. Monocular contrast sensitivity was measured using the CSV-1000E chart for children 6 years of age or younger and a psychophysical technique called the quick contrast sensitivity function in older children. Stereoacuity was measured using the Random Dot Test that includes monocular cues and the Randot Stereoacuity Test that does not have monocular cues. Results: Statistically significant interocular differences in contrast sensitivity were observed. These differences tended to occur at higher spatial frequencies (12 and 18 cycles per degree). Stereoacuity within the age-specific normal range was achieved by 47.4% of patients for the Random Dot Test and only 23.1% of patients for the Randot Stereoacuity Test. Conclusions: Full recovery of visual acuity following treatment for refractive amblyopia does not equalize interocular contrast sensitivity or restore normal stereopsis. Alternative therapeutic approaches that target contrast sensitivity and/or binocular vision are required.
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.