ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of the effect of patching therapy on dry eye tests and tear film osmolarity in children with amblyopia.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare dry eye tests, meibography, and tear film osmolarity between eyes with and without patching therapy in amblyopic children and evaluate the effects of patching duration on these parameters.
methodsCooperative children aged between 4 and 12 years, with no history of ocular surgical intervention or ocular surface disease, who had been on patch therapy for at least 3 months due to monocular amblyopia, were included. Tear osmolarity was measured first, before any ocular surface manipulation, using the TearLab
resultsA total of 98 eyes from 49 patients (22 females, 27 males), with a median age of 7 years (IQR: 5-8; range: 4-12), were included. There was no significant difference in age or gender between the two groups (p = 0.660, p = 0.089 respectively). T-BUT values were similar between the patched and unpatched amblyopic eyes [12 (10-13) vs. 12 (10-14) s; p = 0.129]. Oxford fluorescein staining also showed no significant between-eye difference (p = 1.000). Although osmolarity was higher in the patched eyes, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.162). There was no difference in median Schirmer values (p = 0.091). Although median osmolarity was higher and Schirmer 1 was lower in Group 2, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.396, p = 0.633 respectively). Upper and lower eyelid meibography results were categorized based on the presence or absence of any deterioration (Grade 0: No deterioration; Grades 1-3: Any deterioration). No significant differences were found in upper or lower eyelid meibography findings between the patched and unpatched amblyopic eyes (p = 1.000 and p = 0.210, respectively), or between Group 1 and Group 2 (p = 0.740 and p = 0.737, respectively).
conclusionAlthough patching is considered the gold standard for managing amblyopia, its effects on ocular surface homeostasis remain unclear. In this sample, no statistically significant differences were observed in dry eye tests, tear osmolarity, or meibography findings, and no measurable adverse effect on ocular surface parameters was demonstrated. Daily patching duration was also not significantly associated with these parameters. Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate potential long-term effects.
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.