ReviewInternational ophthalmology2023
The 100 most cited papers on amblyopia: a bibliographic perspective.
Review in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex as a biological variable in amblyopia: implications for developmental plasticity and treatment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Multi-Feature Mapping of Distortions in Amblyopia With Localized Sampling.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- The 100 most cited articles on trachoma: a bibliometric analysis.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo analyze the top 100 most cited papers related to amblyopia.
methodsA bibliographic search in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge across 55 years was performed.
resultsEighty-nine of the 100 papers were published in first-quartile journals. Half (50) of the senior authors were from the USA. Most papers dealt with clinical science (72) and included original research (84). Forty-two of the articles related to all three types of amblyopia (refractive, strabismic and deprivation). Thirty-four related to both strabismic and refractive amblyopia. Around two-thirds of the papers dealt with treatment (34) and pathophysiology (30). Almost a quarter (23%) of the papers were multicenter studies. Nearly half (48) of the papers were published between 2000 and 2010. The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) published the highest number of studies (11), which dealt more with treatment (p = 0.01) and had higher average number of citations per years (p = 0.05). A larger number of articles on the treatment of amblyopia are newer (p = 0.01). There was no correlation between the time of their publication and the number of citations (p = 0.68, r = 0.042).
conclusionsHalf of the papers were published between 2000 and 2010 and were spearheaded by PEDIG. Most papers dealt with treatment and pathophysiology. This study provides an important historical perspective, emphasizing the need for additional research to better understand this preventable and curable childhood vision impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36057007What 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.