ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparison of Virtual Reality-Assisted Visual Training with Conventional Strategies in the Treatment of Bilateral Refractive Amblyopia.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Advances in behavioral vision training for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Effect of active vision therapy on contrast sensitivity in bilateral amblyopia.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVisual training based on perceptual learning and dichoptic stimulation has been developed for amblyopic treatment. However, reports on virtual reality-assisted (VR) training for amblyopia are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of VR training and compare the visual outcomes of different treatments in children with bilateral refractive amblyopia.
methodsChildren aged 4-8 years with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) less than 20/25 were included. All of the patients had worn glasses for at least 2 months before enrollment. At enrollment, age, gender, refractive status, baseline BCVA, and amblyopia severity were recorded. The treatment outcomes were evaluated in terms of BCVA at 24 weeks, the change in BCVA from baseline to 24 weeks, and the time taken to achieve treatment success (BCVA ≥ 20/25).
resultsThe longitudinal study included 30 patients in the Cambridge Visual Stimulator (CAM) training group, 14 in the VR training group, and 26 in the control group (glasses only). Among patients with an initial BCVA between 20/100 and 20/40, a significantly higher proportion of those in the VR training group achieved treatment success compared to the control group (
conclusionsVisual training can shorten the time taken to achieve treatment success compared to glasses alone. While VR training seems more effective than CAM training, both are valuable strategies for amblyopic children who respond poorly to glasses alone.
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.