ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
Effect of Individualized and Adaptive Vision Training versus 6 hours of Patching in Children with Residual Amblyopia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite refractive correction and patching, some patients have residual amblyopia. In the current study, we compared the effectiveness of daily 6-hours (6-h) intensive patching and a newly developed individualized and adaptive vision training (iAVT) protocol for residual amblyopia in children.
methodsIn a randomized clinical trial, 60 children aged 4 to under 11 years with residual amblyopia and visual acuity ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) were assigned to receive either 50 sessions of iAVT training or 6 h of daily patching for 10 weeks.
resultsVisual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved more in the iAVT group than in the extended patching group (0.13 versus 0.07 logMAR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.010-0.100; p = 0.017) over 10 weeks. At 2 weeks, the iAVT group also showed a faster improvement compared with the patching group (0.09 versus 0.06 logMAR; 95% CI -0.004 to 0.067; p = 0.076). Meanwhile, no significant between-group difference was found in the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) change. However, the AULCSF of the iAVT group showed a marginally significant within-group improvement from base to week 10 (0.78 versus 0.89; 95% CI -0.225 to 0.001; p = 0.056), while no significant change was observed in the patching group. The iAVT group also reported higher quality-of-life scores after treatment, as monitored by the Pediatric Eye Questionnaire.
conclusionsThe iAVT provided a faster and more effective treatment for residual amblyopia compared with 6-h patching within the 10-week treatment period. These results suggest that iAVT may be an important new approach to treating residual amblyopia. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300075594. Registered on 8 September 2023-retrospectively registered.
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.