ArticleJournal of optometry
Impact of active vision therapy compared to conventional patching therapy on visual acuity and stereoacuity in children with amblyopia.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative amblyopia in children with congenital cataracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of acupuncture combined therapies for amblyopia: efficacy and safety insights.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of active vision therapy on task-based saccadic and smooth pursuit performance in children with anisometropic amblyopia.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
- Advances in behavioral vision training for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Intermittent Exotropia: A Real-World Longitudinal Cohort Study of 415 Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of gamified binocular treatment versus conventional patching for amblyopia: a randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Visual training system 4: a promising adjuvant therapy for ocular accommodative function and visual acuity improvement in refractive amblyopia patients.American journal of translational research · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.