ArticleCureus2025
Deciphering Amblyopia: Epidemiological Insights From a Pediatric Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Changing Natural History of Anisometropia: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors associated with amblyopia among preschool and school-going children aged 3-12 years. Methodology A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted on 1,683 preschool and school-going children in western India. They were divided into three groups (group A: 3-5 years, group B: 6-9 years, and group C: 10-12 years). All participants underwent comprehensive ophthalmological evaluations to identify ocular causes of amblyopia such as refractive errors, strabismus, and stimulus deprivation. Non-ocular risk factors were assessed through detailed parental questionnaires addressing prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal histories. Results Of the children screened, 5.88% (n = 99) were diagnosed with refractive errors, and 1.66% (n = 28) were diagnosed with amblyopia. Among amblyopic children, refractive amblyopia was the most prevalent at 71.43% (n = 20, p < 0.0001), followed by strabismic amblyopia (21.43%, n = 6) and stimulus deprivation amblyopia (7.14%, n = 2). Astigmatism was found to be most amblyogenic in cases of both unilateral and bilateral amblyopia, though hypermetropic amblyopic children formed the majority of the refractive amblyopia population. The majority of children had moderately severe amblyopia across all age groups. Significant non-ocular risk factors included pre-obese maternal body mass index at conception (p < 0.001) and low birth weight (p < 0.001). Although preterm birth also emerged as a major risk factor, the results were not significant (p = 0.063). Conclusions Amblyopia in children can be attributed to both modifiable ocular and non-ocular risk factors. It is one of the most common reversible causes of childhood blindness. Early identification and intervention are essential for optimal visual outcomes, highlighting the importance of initiating amblyopia screening programs starting at preschool ages.
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.