Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37866177›Full record

ArticleJournal of optometry

Impact of active vision therapy compared to conventional patching therapy on visual acuity and stereoacuity in children with amblyopia.

Rinkal Suwal, Mahesh Kumar Dev, Bijay Khatri, Deepak Khadka, Arjun Shrestha, Samata Sharma, Madan Prasad Upadhyay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Rinkal SuwalDepartment of Optometry, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services (CHEERS), Bhaktapur, Nepal. Electronic address: rinkalsuwal@gmail.com.
Mahesh Kumar DevSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Bijay KhatriAcademic and Research Department, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services (CHEERS), Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Deepak KhadkaDepartment of Ophthalmology, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services (CHEERS), Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Arjun ShresthaDepartment of Ophthalmology, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services (CHEERS), Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Samata SharmaDepartment of Ophthalmology, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services (CHEERS), Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Madan Prasad UpadhyayDepartment of Ophthalmology, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services (CHEERS), Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology · NPQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare improvements in visual acuity (VA) and stereoacuity between active vision therapy (AVT) and conventional patching therapy in children with amblyopia.

methodsThis study included 65 children aged 5 to 16 years (mean age±SD, 11.00±3.29 years) with unilateral amblyopia. Among them, 31 children underwent active vision therapy (AVT group), and 34 children underwent conventional patching therapy (patching group). AVT group underwent three sequential phases of AVT: Monocular phase (pursuit, saccades, fixation, visuomotor, eye-hand coordination, and central peripheral activities), biocular phase (diplopia awareness, antisuppression, monocular fixation in a binocular field, accommodative activities, bilateral integration, and fine motor activities) and binocular phase (fusion and stereopsis). Patching group patched their fellow eyes as per guidelines by Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Best-corrected monocular VA and stereoacuity were measured at baseline and after three months of therapy in both groups.

resultsThere were significant improvements in the mean acuities in amblyopic eye (AE) in both AVT (0.32±0.11 logMAR, p <0.001) and patching groups (0.27±0.19 logMAR, p ˂ 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in mean acuity gains in AE between AVT and patching groups (p = 0.059). Mean gains in stereoacuities (log seconds of arc) were statistically significant in both AVT (0.81±0.34, p < 0.001) and patching groups (0.32±0.34, p < 0.001). The stereoacuity gain in the AVT group was significantly higher compared to patching group (p < 0.001).

conclusionActive vision therapy had a better impact than conventional patching therapy in terms of improvement of stereoacuity but not in terms of VA when used for treating children with amblyopia.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaAdolescentChildEyeglassesFollow-Up StudiesHumansSensory DeprivationTreatment OutcomeVision, BinocularVisual AcuityActive vision therapyAmblyopiaPatching therapyStereoacuityVisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID37866177
PMCPMC10785416
OpenAlexW4387865722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.