ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026
Equivalent effectiveness of a prescription binocular treatment for amblyopia in real-world practice.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGaps often exist between a therapy's performance in a controlled research setting and outcomes in routine clinical practice. A prescription binocular treatment delivered via head-mounted display has demonstrated efficacy for improving visual acuity in children with amblyopia in a pivotal randomized controlled trial (RCT). A retrospective patient registry has been established to collect real-world data on the treatment.
objectiveTo evaluate the real-world effectiveness of this treatment by benchmarking outcomes from a patient registry against those from the RCT.
methodsA retrospective analysis of a multicenter US patient registry was completed. The Registry was queried for patients who matched key eligibility criteria of the RCT with respect to age, amblyopia type and severity, and prior treatment exposure. The primary outcome was the change in amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to the 12-week follow-up visit. These outcomes were compared with the historical intent-to-treat cohort (n = 45) from the RCT using a two one-sided tests procedure for equivalence with an equivalence margin of ±0.75 lines.
resultsAmong the 40 registry patients meeting query criteria, mean age was 5.7 ± 1.0 years, and 21/40 (53%) had a history of prior treatment. Amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity improved a mean 1.7 lines (95% CI = 1.2-2.2), consistent with statistical equivalence within the prespecified ±0.75-line margin compared with RCT participants (1.8 lines; 95% CI = 1.4-2.3; two one-sided tests
conclusionsPatients prescribed this treatment for amblyopia in clinical practice achieved visual acuity improvements consistent with those observed in the RCT, indicating that effectiveness generalizes to real-world settings.
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.