ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Real world gains stable in children with amblyopia following digital dichoptic treatment: PUPiL registry results.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Editorial: Development and neuroplasticity of the visual system, amblyopia and beyond.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssess outcomes and durability of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvements of amblyopic children who completed treatment with a digital dichoptic treatment, Luminopia.
methodsRetrospective analysis of PUPiL Registry (Patients Using Prescription Luminopia) data of children (< 18 years) with 20/40 or worse BCVA in the amblyopic eye and ≥ 2 lines interocular difference in BCVA who completed Luminopia treatment. Main outcome measures were BCVA changes from baseline to last follow-up visit on treatment, and durability of improvements > 6 weeks after treatment discontinuation.
resultsIn 60 children, mean age 7.2 ± 2.5 years at treatment initiation, there was a mean 1.4 lines (95% CI[1.0, 1.8]) of improvement of BCVA with mean treatment duration of 7.0 months (95% CI[6.2, 7.7]). BCVA improvement was seen in subgroups based on severity, age at initiation, type and prior amblyopia treatment. Children with severe (< 20/100) and moderate (20/40 to > 20/100) amblyopia showed significant improvement on treatment (p < 0.001, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in BCVA line improvement in children initiated on treatment based on age (≤ 7 years vs. ≥8 years (p = 0.61), or based on type of amblyopia (anisometropic, strabismic, mixed (p = 0.18)). Patients with no history of prior amblyopia treatment showed greater improvement than children with a history of prior treatment (p < 0.001). After an average of 6.2 months (95% CI[5.4, 7.0]) follow-up post-treatment, gains in BCVA were maintained, with no statistically significant change from treatment end to final follow-up (p = 0.09). Amblyopia recurrence (> 2 line loss) was 3%.
conclusionsChildren with amblyopia are typically treated with Luminopia for < 1 year and showed improved BCVA with durability after discontinuation. Visual gains were maintained independent of subsequent patching or atropine. The BCVA gains and durability were consistent in subgroups based on age of treatment initiation, amblyopia type and severity, and prior treatment history.
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.