ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Perceptual Learning Therapy Using RevitalVision in Patching-Failed Amblyopia: Visual Outcomes, Predictors of Response, and Durability.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- NeuroVision training may improve subjective visual quality in patients with residual refractive error after SMILE: a prospective clinical trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Trial
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
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness, predictors, and durability of perceptual learning therapy using ReVitalVision in older children with amblyopia who had failed prolonged patching therapy. Methods: This prospective interventional study included children (≤18 years) and adults with amblyopia, with pediatric participants having failed ≥2 years of patching due to poor compliance or non-response. All participants completed a mandatory minimum of 40 ReVitalVision sessions; up to 80 sessions were optional. Vision (logMAR) and stereoacuity were assessed at baseline, after 40 and 80 sessions, and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Multivariable regression was performed to identify predictors of outcome. Results: Seventy-three participants (mean age 14.6 ± 5.5 years; 67% male) were included: anisometropic (n=34), strabismic (n=20), isometropic (n=6), deprivational (n=4), and other causes (n=9). After 40 sessions, significant visual improvement was observed across subtypes, greatest in anisometropic amblyopia (0.50 to 0.32 logMAR), with 40% achieving 20/40 or better. Strabismic amblyopia showed slower recovery (0.54 to 0.38 logMAR) and greater variability, while deprivational amblyopia showed limited response. Stereoacuity improved significantly in anisometropic (175 to 67 arcsec) and strabismic amblyopia (214 to 48 arcsec). Baseline BCVA was the strongest predictor of outcome (β = 0.061 per line worsening; p < 0.001), independent of amblyopia subtype and age. Time taken to complete 40 sessions did not influence outcomes. Eighty sessions produced marginally better vision but significantly greater stereoacuity improvement (p = 0.002). A subtle trend toward regression was observed at 6-12 months. Conclusion: ReVitalVision therapy produces clinically meaningful visual and binocular improvements in patching-failed amblyopia. Baseline visual acuity strongly predicts response and durability, and extended therapy may benefit patients with denser amblyopia, supporting individualized treatment duration.
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.