Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39310641›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Meridional Amblyopia and Spectacle Correction: A Prospective Interventional Study of Children Aged 4-11 Years.

Mutahir Shah, Satheesh Babu Natarajan, Nafees Ahmad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Mutahir ShahOphthalmology, Lincoln University College, Kuala Lumpur, MYS.
Satheesh Babu NatarajanHealth Sciences, Lincoln University College, Kuala Lumpur, MYS.
Nafees AhmadGenetics, Institute of Biomedical and Genetic Engineering, Islamabad, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Amblyopia, often linked to high astigmatism in children, presents challenges in understanding the contributing factors and visual outcomes. Methods A total of 132 samples were included in this prospective pre- and post-interventional study using the purposive sampling technique. Descriptive statistics were applied for age, gender, uncorrected visual acuity, corrected visual acuity, type, and magnitude of astigmatism. A repeated measure ANOVA was used, and a paired t-test was also done for groups with corrected visual acuity in meridional amblyopia at two follow-ups spaced six months apart. Logistic regression was used to identify the association between astigmatism types and patients' recovery from amblyopia after intervention. Results The age of participants was 4-11 years with meridional amblyopia. Initial findings showed a mean uncorrected visual acuity of 0.73 LogMAR in the right eye (RE) and 0.71 LogMAR in the left eye (LE), improving significantly to 0.35 LogMAR post-intervention in both eyes. The calculated mean difference between the first correction and the first follow-up was 0.12 and 0.13 LogMAR, while it was 0.20 and 0.21 LogMAR in the RE and LE, respectively, at the second follow-up. Spherical refractive errors averaged +0.93 DS, with mean cylindrical refraction indicating predominant with-the-rule corneal astigmatism (-3.46 DS). We observed a significant improvement in visual acuity (p-value < 0.001) and an increase in the magnitude of cylindrical prescription (p-value < 0.001). However, astigmatism types are not associated with response to therapy. Conclusion The study concluded that early detection of meridional amblyopia and early intervention with spectacles significantly improve visual acuity.

Indexed as

astigmatism treatmentmeridional amblyopiapediatric refractionspectacle correctionwith the rule astigmatism

Identifiers

PMID39310641
PMCPMC11416691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.