ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Standard Amblyopia Therapy in Adults with Longstanding Amblyopia Improves Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment strategies for amblyopia in adults: an overview of conventional methods and new technologies.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyPooled it
- In-bag vs out-of-bag intraocular lens implantation for ectopia lentis: prospective comparative study.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Improving Adult Vision Through Pathway-Specific Training in Augmented Reality.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Perceptual learning or dichoptic training may result in improved acuity in adult amblyopes. However, for amblyopic children (<18 years), most clinicians recommend standard part-time patching. The purpose of this study was to determine if standard amblyopia therapy results in an enhancement in vision in the amblyopic eye of adults. Patients and Methods: Fifteen amblyopes (20/30 or worse) were recruited and nine (age (SD) 32.9 (16.31)) with anisometropia or anisometropia and strabismus (ie, combined mechanism amblyopia) completed the study. Previous therapy did not exclude subjects. The subjects received a comprehensive eye exam and wore their best correction for at least four weeks prior to baseline testing. The non-amblyopic eye was patched for 2 hours per day (Amblyopia iNET training for 30 minutes and near/distance activities for 1.5 hours). The subjects had a baseline amblyopia evaluation followed by one visit per week for 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, the treatment was tapered off over one month and the subjects had a final amblyopia evaluation at 24 weeks. Contrast sensitivity was measured at baseline and 12 weeks with the Quick CSF system. Results: The subjects had a significant improvement in visual acuity across the weeks (p < 0.001). At baseline, weeks 12 and 24, the average logMAR acuities (SE) were 0.55 (0.09), 0.41 (0.08), and 0.38 (0.09), respectively. Weeks 4 to 24 were significantly different (p < 0.001) from baseline. The average acuity improvement over the 24 weeks was 1.7 logMAR lines. There was a significant increase in the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (p = 0.002) and its estimated acuity (p = 0.036) from baseline to 12 weeks. Conclusion: Standard amblyopia treatment can result in an improvement in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in adults with longstanding anisometropic or combined mechanism amblyopia even if they had prior therapy.
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.