ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Extending Treatment Duration in Perceptual Learning for Amblyopia.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. 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
- Perceptual Learning Therapy Using RevitalVision in Patching-Failed Amblyopia: Visual Outcomes, Predictors of Response, and Durability.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Perceptual learning (PL) is a novel therapeutic approach for the treatment of amblyopia. This study evaluated whether extending the duration of PL could yield sustained therapeutic benefits in amblyopia management. Design: A retrospective observational design. Methods: Analysis included 93 of 100 patients who completed 6-month lateral masking PL and had 3- or 6-month follow-up data. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations. Longitudinal changes in visual function-including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity function (CSF), and stereopsis-were evaluated using a linear mixed-effects model. To identify factors associated with improvements in BCVA and area under the log CSF (AULCSF), multivariable linear regression models were constructed, incorporating all relevant covariates selected based on clinical significance and evidence from existing literature. Only 1 amblyopic eye per patient was included in the analysis of BCVA and AULCSF. In cases of bilateral amblyopia, the worse eye was selected for the primary analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in 2 ways: (1) using measurements from the better eye and (2) using datasets in which missing values had been imputed based on logical rules; the missing value was replaced with the worse outcome of the 2 observed values from the remaining time points. Main Outcome Measures: Measurements included BCVA, CSF, and stereoacuity. Results: A total of 93 participants (46 males and 47 females) were enrolled, with a mean age of 15.3 ± 8.3 years. Amblyopia subtypes included: isoametropic (n = 8), anisometropic (n = 63), strabismic (n = 12), deprivation (n = 1), and mixed (n = 9). Analysis revealed significant and sustained improvements in both BCVA and the AULCSF. Near stereopsis also improved following 3 months of PL training. However, further extension of the training duration did not result in additional significant gains in stereopsis. Multivariable linear regression analysis indicated that initial baseline visual function and history of occlusion therapy were the primary factors associated with the improvement of BCVA and AULCSF. Conclusions: Perceptual learning treatment can improve the visual function of amblyopia patients. Considering that extending the duration of PL still resulted in measurable visual improvements, a 6-month training of PL appears to be necessary. Financial Disclosures: The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.