ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Validating Rules for Defining No Improvement of Visual Acuity in Childhood Amblyopia.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative Higher-Order Aberrations as Predictors of Visual Acuity Changes Following Presbyopia-Correcting (PCIOL) and Aspheric Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implantation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Various Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Using a Novel Composite Method for the Analysis and Reporting of Uncorrected Distance, Intermediate, and Near Visual Acuities.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: When treating amblyopia, it is important to define when visual acuity (VA) is no longer improving (i.e., stable) because treatment decisions may be altered based on this determination. Methods: Simulated observed VAs, incorporating measurement error, were compared with simulated true VAs to determine false-positive and false-negative rates for stable VA for six rules (using single VA or test/retest measurements, with or without averaging, over two or three visits). Four HOTV VA profiles were modeled: stable or improving VA over time with each of patching and spectacles. Results: Across six rules and two treatments, when true VA was stable, false-negative rates for stability ranged from 26% to 67%; when true VA was improving, false-positive rates for stability ranged from 0% to 38%. Single VA measurements at consecutive visits had a false-negative rate of 30% with patching and 29% with spectacles, a false-positive rate of 38% with patching and 35% with spectacles. Averaging two VA tests at each visit slightly increased the false-negative rate (35% with patching and 36% with spectacles), while reducing the false-positive rate (22% with patching and 21% with spectacles). Conclusions: Comparing false-negative and false-positive rates for stability across rules allows selection of the most appropriate rule for clinical practice or research. When considering less desirable treatments, a rule with a lower false-negative rate is preferable, whereas a rule with a lower false-positive rate would be preferred when it is important to correctly classify improving VA.
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.