Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39079927›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2024

Feasibility of a new 'balanced binocular viewing' treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged 3-8 years (BALANCE): results of a phase 2a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Annegret Hella Dahlmann-Noor, John A Greenwood, Andrew Skilton, Daniel Baker, Mohamed Abbas, Emma Clay, Payal Khandelwal, Denise Dunham, Siobhan Ludden, Amanda Davis and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03754153 (Phase 2a Two-site Randomised Controlled Trial to Determine Safety of and Adherence With a New 'Binocularly Balanced Viewing' Treatment for Unilateral Amblyopia Compared With Standard Treatment in Children Age 3-8 Years), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03754153 nacompletednot on this map

Phase 2a Two-site Randomised Controlled Trial to Determine Safety of and Adherence With a New 'Binocularly Balanced Viewing' Treatment for Unilateral Amblyopia Compared With Standard Treatment in Children Age 3-8 Years

TypeinterventionalSponsorMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustRan2019 to 2021Enrolled32ConditionsAmblyopiaArmsBalanced Binocular Viewing (BBV), Standard Therapy - Occlusion (patching) or blurring (atropine)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

12 authors.

Annegret Hella Dahlmann-NoorInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK annegret.dahlmann-noor@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-7402-4350
John A GreenwoodExperimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6184-0818
Andrew SkiltonKing's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9573-372X
Daniel BakerDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0161-443X
Mohamed AbbasMoorfields Eye Hospital City Road Campus, London, UK.
Emma ClayMoorfields Eye Hospital City Road Campus, London, UK.
Payal KhandelwalCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Saint Ives, UK.
Denise DunhamCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Saint Ives, UK.
Siobhan LuddenNIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Amanda DavisNIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Hakim-Moulay DehbiUniversity College London, London, UK.
Steven C DakinSchool of Optometry, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the safety of dichoptic balanced binocular viewing (BBV) for amblyopia in children, plus feasibility, adherence, acceptability, trial methodology and clinical measures of visual function.

designWe carried out an observer-masked parallel-group phase 2a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

settingTwo study sites, a secondary/tertiary and a community site.

participantsWe enrolled 32 children aged 3-8 years with unilateral amblyopia who had completed optical adaptation where indicated. 20 children attended the 16-week exit visit (retention 63%).

interventionsChildren were randomised to BBV (movies customised to interocular acuity difference at baseline) for 1 hour a day (active intervention) or standard management as per parental choice (part-time occlusion or atropine blurring, control). All interventions were used at home, daily for 16 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: 'VacMan suppression test' of interocular balance at 16 weeks from randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: feasibility outcomes (recruitment and retention ratios, adherence with the allocated intervention); safety outcomes at other time points (changes in prevalence of diplopia, manifest strabismus, suppression/interocular balance on a range of tests); efficacy outcomes (clinical measures of visual function, such as best-corrected visual acuity, BCVA). Outcome measures were identical to those planned in the protocol.

resultsPrimary outcome: At baseline, values for the interocular balance point were higher (indicating greater suppression of the amblyopic eye) in the occlusion group than in the BBV group. These values shifted downwards on average for the occlusion group, significantly decreasing from baseline to week 16 (t FEASIBILITY: We prescreened 144 records of potentially eligible children. Between 28 October 2019 and 31 July 2021, including an interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 32 children were screened and randomised (recruitment rate 22%), 16 to BBV and 16 to standard treatment. 20 children attended the 16-week exit visit (retention 63%). Mean adherence with BBV as proportion of viewing time prescribed was 56.1% (SD36) at 8 and 57.9% (SD 30.2) at 16 weeks. Mean adherence with prescribed occlusion time was 90.1% (SD 19.7) at 8 and 59.2% (SD 24.8) at 16 weeks. SECONDARY SAFETY/EFFICACY OUTCOMES: One child in the BBV arm reported transient double vision, which resolved; two reported headaches, which led to withdrawal. BCVA improved from mean 0.47 (SD0.18) logMAR at randomisation to 0.26 (0.14) with standard treatment, and from 0.55 (0.28) to 0.32 (0.26) with BBV. Outcomes at 16 weeks did not differ between treatments. PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCE: Families were generally positive about BBV, but families found both patching and BBV difficult to integrate into family routines.

conclusionsRecruitment rates indicate that a future phase 3 trial will require multiple sites or a longer enrolment period. Retention and adherence rates were lower than anticipated, which will influence future study designs. Dichoptic treatment may be equal to occlusion treatment in safety and efficacy; headaches may lead to discontinuation. Integration into family routines may constitute a barrier to implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03754153.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaFeasibility StudiesVision, BinocularVisual AcuityChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleTreatment Outcomeophthalmologypaediatricsrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID39079927
PMCPMC11407205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.