ArticleClinical optometry2026
Distribution and Patterns of Refractive Errors in a Pediatric Amblyopic Cohort Aged 3-5 Years: A Descriptive Study in a Pakistani Tertiary Eye Care Center.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the patterns and severity of different refractive errors in children aged 3 to 5 years presenting with established amblyopia in a tertiary care eye centre in Pakistan. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care eye center involving 178 children (aged 3-5 years). The study specifically included only those with refractive amblyopia; children with strabismic or sensory deprivation amblyopia were excluded. From each participant, only the amblyopic eye (or the eye with the worse visual acuity in bilateral cases) was analyzed to ensure statistical independence. All participants underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic examination, including cycloplegic refraction (using 1% cyclopentolate) and dilated fundus evaluation. Refractive errors were classified according to MEPEDS criteria, and data was analyzed using SPSS version 24.0. Results: Among the 178 amblyopic eyes, astigmatism (53.4%) was common, particularly myopic astigmatism (n = 28, 15.7%) and hyperopic astigmatism (n = 27, 15.2%). Females were more likely to have myopia or astigmatism, whereas males were more likely to have hyperopia or astigmatism which may indicate some gender-specific patterns in amblyopia. Hyperopia was mostly low to moderate, while moderate astigmatism was more common than high astigmatism. These differences were also statistically significant (p < 0.001). Amblyopes with myopic astigmatism (n = 28, 15.7%) and hyperopic astigmatism (n = 27, 15.2%) exhibited the poorest visual acuity (mean LogMAR VA 1.05 ± 0.49 and 0.96 ± 0.46). Conclusion: Astigmatic refractive errors are more likely associated with greater amblyopia severity, and even lower thresholds of refractive error have the potential to cause amblyopia. By establishing these amblyogenic patterns, our study provides the surveillance data essential for early intervention. These findings advocate for preschool screening to prevent irreversible vision loss, directly advancing the WHO SPECS 2030 goal of people-centered eye care.
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.