ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Comparative Effects of Monocular and Stereopsis Training on Visual Acuity and Stereoacuity in Children With Amblyopia.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
Purpose: To evaluate changes in visual acuity (VA) and stereoacuity in children with amblyopia following monocular or stereopsis training delivered alongside standard clinical care and to examine factors associated with training-related improvements in visual outcomes. Methods: Forty-three children with amblyopia (7.3-14.8 years; 37 anisometropic, five strabismic, and one mixed) completed approximately 29 sessions of either monocular training (grating acuity or motion discrimination targeting the amblyopic eye, n = 23) or binocular stereopsis training (dichoptic disparity discrimination, n = 20). All participants continued standard clinical management, including optical correction and prescribed patching. Pre- and post-training assessments included amblyopic-eye VA, interocular acuity difference (IOD), and Randot stereoacuity. Results: Both training protocols produced significant task-specific learning. Amblyopic-eye VA improved significantly in both groups, with no evidence of differential effects between training approaches. Stereoacuity also improved in both groups, with significantly greater gains following stereopsis training than monocular training. Exploratory analyses indicated that poorer baseline amblyopic-eye VA was associated with larger VA gains; however, this association did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. Stereoacuity improvement was not significantly associated with baseline VA, IOD, age, or changes in VA. Conclusions: Visual training combined with standard clinical care improved amblyopic-eye VA and stereoacuity in children with amblyopia. Although both training approaches yielded comparable gains in VA, stereopsis training produced larger improvements in stereoacuity, supporting its potential role in addressing residual binocular deficits after conventional treatment.
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.