ArticleMaedica2026
A Randomized Clinical Study to Compare the Effectiveness of the Orthoptek Magnocellular Stimulator, Occlu-tab and Phakic Intraocular Lens in Refractive Amblyopia of Older Children and Young Adults.
Article in Maedica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The conventional management modality of refractive amblyopia is patching of the normal eye, which has high recurrence rates. Modern technological advancements have the potential to offer comprehensive visual rehabilitation and improvement in binocular single vision. Aims: To compare the clinical efficacy of three novel interventions - Phakic intraocular lens (IOL), Occlu-tab and Orthoptek Magnocellular Stimulator - in managing refractive amblyopia in adolescents and young adults. Methods: Young adults with refractive amblyopia who did not respond to occlusion therapy were randomized into three groups: Occlu-tab, Orthoptek and Phakic IOL. Pre- and post-treatment best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity were assessed. Results: All three modalities produced significant within-group improvements in BCVA, contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity (p < 0.001). Best-corrected visual acuity improved comparably across the three groups, including Orthoptek (mean gain 0.44), Occlu-tab (0.34) and Phakic IOL (0.29 logMAR). There was no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.136). Contrast sensitivity gains were higher for Occlu-tab (+0.78) and Orthoptek (+0.78) than for Phakic IOL (+0.59), with a significant between-group difference (p = 0.003). Stereoacuity has markedly improved with Occlu-tab (715.62 sec arc) and Orthoptek (713.54 sec arc) versus less improvement with a Phakic IOL (312.50 sec arc), with the between-group difference being highly significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In terms of final binocular functional success rates, Orthoptek and Occlu-tab therapies were superior as compared to Phakic IOLs. A combination of amblyopia therapies should be the approach in the near future.
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.