ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Efficacy of Dichoptic Treatment vs Eye Patching in Pediatric Patients with Amblyopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- The role of feedback in amblyopia treatment - a multi-centre randomised control trial.Eye (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Binocular Vision Anomalies: An Update on Prevalence, Impact, Technological and Treatment Developments and Current Challenges.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of dichoptic therapy vs traditional patching in treating pediatric amblyopia. The primary focus was on improvements in visual acuity (VA) and stereoacuity (SA), with an evaluation of adverse events and treatment compliance. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and other databases up to August 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dichoptic therapy with eye patching in children (aged 0-18) with amblyopia were included. Studies reporting VA and SA outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was VA improvement; secondary outcomes included changes in SA and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software, with random-effects models. Results: Eleven studies involving 902 children with amblyopia were included. Patching resulted in a statistically significant improvement in VA, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.27 logMAR lines (95% CI: 0.07-0.48, p = 0.008), favoring patching over dichoptic therapy. Stereoacuity improvements were not significantly different between the two approaches (SMD: 0.28, 95% CI: -0.11-0.68, p = 0.16). Adverse events were more common in the patching group, with skin irritation being the most frequently reported issue. Both treatments showed moderate to high levels of compliance. Conclusion: While patching demonstrated a modest advantage in improving visual acuity, dichoptic therapy provides a promising alternative, particularly due to its interactive nature and potential to improve treatment compliance. Given no significant difference in stereoacuity outcomes and the mild adverse events associated with both methods, dichoptic therapy should be considered a viable option for amblyopia treatment in children.
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.