Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41820561›Full record

Trial reportEye (London, England)2026

The role of feedback in amblyopia treatment - a multi-centre randomised control trial.

Gail D E Maconachie, Michael Hisaund, Seema Teli, Ashleigh Mellors, Lucy Mallory, Mansha Seewoodharry, Viral Sheth, Ravi Purohit, Rebecca J McLean, Julie Kempton and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Gail D E Maconachie *The University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. g.d.maconachie@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9131-3480
Michael Hisaund *The University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Seema TeliThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Ashleigh MellorsThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Lucy MalloryThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Mansha SeewoodharryThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Viral ShethThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Ravi PurohitThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9727-5275
Rebecca J McLeanThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Julie KemptonClinical Engineering, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Shegufta FarooqBradford Teaching Hospitals, Bradford, UK.
Alison BruceBradford Teaching Hospitals, Bradford, UK.
Frank A ProudlockThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Irene GottlobThe University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Department of Psychology and Visual Sciences, University of Leicester, RKCSB, PO Box 65, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.

Funding

National Eye Research Centre (NERC) SCIAD 033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional occlusion is an effective treatment for amblyopia; however, adherence remains a significant barrier. This is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating whether objective, electronically monitored adherence "feedback" improves amblyopia treatment adherence.

methodsThis unmasked, parallel two-armed multicentre RCT included 102 children aged 3-8 yrs with monocular amblyopia (≥0.3 logMAR interocular difference). Participants could have up to 18 months of previous patching and were prescribed 10 h/6days of patching. Participants were randomised to a Feedback Group (n = 51), receiving feedback from treatment monitors, or Controls (n = 51). Change in adherence (CA) was measured from the first to last available monitor for patching and glasses over 12 weeks. Regression models explored factors influencing visual outcome and adherence.

resultsOf 102 participants, 74 were analysed for patching and 78 for glasses. Mean patching CA was -0.39 ± 2.01 h/day (control) versus -0.32 ± 2.20 h/day (feedback), with no significant group difference (P = 0.89). Median glasses-wearing CA was -0.55 IQR:2.55 h/day (control) vs. -0.05 IQR:1.73 h/day (feedback), also non-significant (P = 0.38). Overall average adherence to glasses was 10.3 h/day and 7.9 h/day for patching. Younger age, less previous patching, and higher adherence to treatment significantly predicted better visual outcome. Females had significantly lower glasses-wearing adherence.

conclusionThis study shows for the first time that patching and glasses adherence can be monitored and fed back to patients and their carers. While we found no additional influence of feedback on adherence, we observed that when children and their guardians were aware of active monitoring and frequently seen, we observed high and sustained levels of adherence. The significant correlations to visual outcomes further highlight the importance of early treatment in amblyopia.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaFeedbackPatient ComplianceSensory DeprivationChildChild, PreschoolEyeglassesFemaleHumansMaleTreatment OutcomeVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID41820561
PMCPMC13194784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.