SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Short- and long-term outcomes of binocular gaming versus patching in childhood amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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.
- Advances in behavioral vision training for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to systematically compare binocular gaming with conventional occlusion therapy for visual acuity improvement in childhood amblyopia. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251080735). PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched through June 2025 for randomized controlled trials in children aged 3-18 years with unilateral amblyopia. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity improvement, expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). A random-effects model was applied with subgroup analyses by treatment duration, sample size, and patient characteristics. Nine RCTs, including 986 children, met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between binocular gaming and patching (SMD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.2 to 0.3, p = 0.68) with substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionBinocular gaming may provide short-term benefits, but robust evidence indicates patching is superior for long-term outcomes. After adequate refractive correction, conventional occlusion therapy remains the recommended first-line active treatment for amblyopia. Binocular gaming may be considered as an adjunct or alternative for children who are unable to comply with patching. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Patching is an effective standard treatment for childhood amblyopia. • Evidence for binocular gaming compared with patching has been inconsistent. WHAT IS NEW: • Binocular gaming shows short-term benefit, but patching is superior long term. • High-quality trials support patching as first-line; gaming may be an adjunct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41526699What 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.