-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Hyperopia in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hyperopia in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus. Strabismus may result in asthenopia and intermittent diplopia, and makes near work tasks difficult to complete. Spectacles to correct hyperopic refractive error is believed to prevent the development of strabismus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of prescription spectacles compared with no intervention for the prevention of strabismus in infants and children with hyperopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 12; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; three other databases; and two trial registries. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials investigating spectacle intervention or no treatment for children with hyperopia. We required hyperopia to be at least greater than +2.00 diopters (D).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was the proportion of children with manifest strabismus, as defined by study investigators. Other outcomes included the amblyopia, stereoacuity, and the effect of spectacle use of strabismus and visual acuity. We also collected information on change in refractive error as a measurement of the interference of emmetropization.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four randomized controlled trials (985 children enrolled who were aged six months to less than 36 months) in this review. Three trials were in the UK with follow-up periods ranging from one to 3.5 years and one in the US with three years' follow-up. Investigators reported both incidence and final status regarding strabismus. Evidence of the incidence of strabismus, measured in 804 children over three to four years in four trials was uncertain although suggestive of a benefit with spectacle use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.02). We have very low confidence in these results due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When assessed as the proportion of children with strabismus at the end of three years' follow-up, we found a similar level of evidence for an effect of spectacles on strabismus as reported in one study (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.25; 106 children). We have very low confidence in these results because of low sample size and risk of bias. One trial reported on the risk for developing amblyopia and inadequate stereoacuity after three years in 106 children. There was unclear evidence for a decreased risk of developing amblyopia (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.93), and limited evidence for a benefit of spectacles for prevention of inadequate stereoacuity (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.88). We have very low confidence in these findings due to imprecision and risk of bias. The risk of not developing emmetropization is unclear. One trial reported on the proportion of children not achieving emmetropization at three years' follow-up (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.19). One trial suggested spectacles impede emmetropization, and one trial reported no difference. These two trials could not be combined because the methods for assessing emmetropization were different. With the high risk of bias and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for a risk for impeding or benefiting emmetropization is very low. Based on a meta-analysis of four trials (770 children), the risk of having visual acuity worse than 20/30 measured up to three years of age or at the end of three years of follow-up was uncertain for children with spectacle correction compared with those without correction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; very low confidence due to risk of bias and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of spectacle correction for prevention of strabismus is still unclear. In addition, the use of spectacle on the risk of visual acuity worse than 20/30, amblyopia, and inadequate emmetropization is also unclear. There may be a benefit on prevention of inadequate stereoacuity. However, these effects may have been chance findings or due to bias.
Topics: Age Factors; Amblyopia; Bias; Child, Preschool; Emmetropia; Eyeglasses; Humans; Hyperopia; Incidence; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sample Size; Strabismus; Treatment Outcome; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32240551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007738.pub3 -
International Journal of Oral and... Sep 2020Ocular anomalies may occur in craniofacial microsomia (CFM). The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature on ocular anomalies and their incidence, in...
Ocular anomalies may occur in craniofacial microsomia (CFM). The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature on ocular anomalies and their incidence, in order to estimate the need for ophthalmological screening in CFM patients. Online databases were searched, and data on the number of patients, type and incidence of ocular anomalies, and visual acuity were extracted. Four subgroups of ocular and adnexal anomalies were identified, to provide an overview of the different anomalies. Twenty-five papers analysing 1419 patients in total were included. Ocular anomalies were documented in 6.7-100% of patients. The most reported type I ocular anomalies were eyelid coloboma, lipodermoids, and orbital dystopia. The most reported type II ocular anomalies were epibulbar dermoid, microphthalmia, and anophthalmia. Ptosis and strabismus were the most reported type III anomalies, and irregular astigmatism was the most reported type IV ocular anomaly. Visual impairment in general was reported in 8-71.4% of patients, with severe visual impairment in 11.1-71.4% and amblyopia in 16.3%. This study provides a detailed overview of ocular anomalies in CFM and their prevalence. Furthermore, we propose a new classification to organize ocular anomalies into four clinically relevant subtypes. Finally, the high prevalence of ocular anomalies and visual impairment in this study suggests that CFM patients should undergo ophthalmological screening at least once during the sensitive period.
Topics: Coloboma; Face; Goldenhar Syndrome; Humans; Prevalence; Strabismus
PubMed: 32217034
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.03.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Stimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the passage of light secondary to a condition such as cataract. The obstruction prevents formation...
BACKGROUND
Stimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the passage of light secondary to a condition such as cataract. The obstruction prevents formation of a clear image on the retina. SDA can be resistant to treatment, leading to poor visual prognosis. SDA probably constitutes less than 3% of all amblyopia cases, although precise estimates of prevalence are unknown. In high-income countries, most people present under the age of one year; in low- to middle-income countries, people are likely to be older at the time of presentation. The mainstay of treatment is correction of the obstruction (e.g., removal of the cataract) and then occlusion of the better-seeing eye, but regimens vary, can be difficult to execute, and traditionally are believed to lead to disappointing results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of occlusion therapy for SDA in an attempt to establish realistic treatment outcomes and to examine evidence of any dose-response effect and assess the effect of the duration, severity, and causative factor on the size and direction of the treatment effect.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 12), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; and five other databases. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We last searched the databases on 12 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials of participants with unilateral SDA with visual acuity worse than 0.2 LogMAR or equivalent. We specified no restrictions for inclusion based upon age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, medication use, or the number of participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no trials that met the inclusion criteria specified in the protocol for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence from RCTs or quasi-randomized trials on the effectiveness of any treatment for SDA. RCTs are needed in order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of occlusion, duration of treatment, level of vision that can be realistically achieved, effects of age at onset and magnitude of visual defect, optimum occlusion regimen, and factors associated with satisfactory and unsatisfactory outcomes with the use of various interventions for SDA.
Topics: Amblyopia; Blepharoptosis; Cataract; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Occlusive Dressings; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32203629
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005136.pub4 -
Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2020Around 253 million people worldwide suffer from irreversible visual damage. Numerous studies have been carried out in order to unveil the effects of electrical...
BACKGROUND
Around 253 million people worldwide suffer from irreversible visual damage. Numerous studies have been carried out in order to unveil the effects of electrical stimulation (ES) as a useful tool for rehabilitation for different visual conditions and pathologies.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to 1) examine the current evidence of ES efficacy for the treatment of visual pathologies and 2) define the corresponding degree of the recommendation of different ES techniques.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE and Cochrane Library database to collect documents published between 2000 and 2018. For each study, Level of Evidence of Effectiveness of ES as well as the Class of Quality for the treatment of different visual pathologies were determined.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight articles were included. Studies were grouped according to the pathology treated and the type of stimulation administered. The first group included studies treating pre-chiasmatic pathologies (age-related macular degeneration, macular dystrophy, retinal artery occlusion, retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma, optic nerve damage, and optic neuropathy) using pre-chiasmatic stimulation; the second group included studies treating both pre-chiasmatic pathologies (amblyopia, myopia) and post-chiasmatic pathologies or brain conditions (hemianopsia, brain trauma) by means of post-chiasmatic stimulation. In the first group, repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) reached level A recommendation, and transcorneal electrical stimulation (tcES) reached level B. In the second group, both high-frequency random noise stimulation (hf-RNS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reached level C recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS
Study's findings suggest conclusive evidence for rtACS treatment. For other protocols results are promising but not conclusive since the examined studies assessed different stimulation parameters and endpoints. A comparison of the effects of different combinations of these variables still lacks in the literature. Further studies are needed to optimize existing protocols and determine if different protocols are needed for different diseases.
Topics: Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Vision Disorders; Vision, Ocular; Visual Fields
PubMed: 31884495
DOI: 10.3233/RNN-190948 -
Clinical Neuropharmacology 2020This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of levodopa as a therapeutic drug in the treatment of children and adults with amblyopia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of levodopa as a therapeutic drug in the treatment of children and adults with amblyopia.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials of levodopa and placebo in the treatment of amblyopia. All data were identified and extracted from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, and the Chinese knowledge resource integration database.
RESULTS
After screening the literature and evaluating the quality, 11 studies met the criteria from 308 studies. The mean difference of LogMAR visual acuity between levodopa and the placebo group was -0.1031 (95% confidence interval, -0.11 to -0.09; P < 0.0001). The improvement of visual acuities of the subgroup of younger patients with amblyopia was significantly higher than that of the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Increasing the dosage of levodopa and prolonging the treatment can significantly improve the curative effect.
CONCLUSIONS
Levodopa is effective in the treatment of amblyopia by prolonging the treatment, especially for young patients.
Topics: Age Factors; Amblyopia; Humans; Levodopa; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31738189
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000372 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology Aug 2020Amblyopia is a leading cause of vision impairment among children and young adults. Individual studies showed significant variations in the prevalence of amblyopia in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Amblyopia is a leading cause of vision impairment among children and young adults. Individual studies showed significant variations in the prevalence of amblyopia in different regions and age groups. This study is to estimate the global prevalence of amblyopia by pooling its prevalence from the previous studies and to project the number of people affected through 2040.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of amblyopia using data published before 20 October 2018. We estimated the prevalence rate of amblyopia and its 95% CI globally and by subgroups (eg, region and age). The prevalence data were applied to United Nations World Population Prospects to derive the projected number with amblyopia through 2040.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis of 60 studies (1 859 327 subjects) showed that the pooled prevalence rate of amblyopia was 1.44% (95% CI 1.17% to 1.78%). Prevalences in Europe (2.90%) and North America (2.41%) were higher than in Asia (1.09%) and Africa (0.72%). The highest prevalence was found in subjects over 20 years old (3.29%). There was no difference in the prevalence between genders. We estimated 99.2 (95% CI 71.7 to 146.1) million people with amblyopia in 2019 worldwide, increasing to 175.2 (95% CI 81.3 to 307.8) million by 2030 and 221.9 (95% CI 83.7 to 429.2) million by 2040.
CONCLUSIONS
The amblyopia is becoming a significant vision problem worldwide. It is of great importance to design and implement amblyopia screening, treatment and related public health strategies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age Distribution; Amblyopia; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Global Health; Humans; Infant; Male; Prevalence; Sex Distribution; Young Adult
PubMed: 31704700
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314759 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing...
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses.
OBJECTIVES
In performing this systematic review, we aimed to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion therapy compared to atropine penalization in treating amblyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS BIREME; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN; and the WHO ICTRP on 7 September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials (five randomized controlled trials and two quasi-randomized controlled trials) conducted in six countries (China, India, Iran, Ireland, Spain, and the United States) with a total of 1177 amblyopic eyes. Three of these seven trials were from the original 2009 version of the review. We assessed two trials as having a low risk of bias across all domains, and the remaining five trials as having unclear or high risk of bias for some domains.As different occlusion modalities, atropine penalization regimens, and populations were used across the included trials, we did not conduct any meta-analysis due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Evidence from six trials (two at low risk of bias) suggests that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion in improving visual acuity. Similar improvement in visual acuity was reported at all time points at which it was assessed, ranging from five weeks (improvement of 1 line) to 10 years (improvement of greater than 3 lines). At six months, although most participants (363/522) come from a trial rated as at low risk of bias with a precise estimate (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.06), two other trials rated as at high risk of bias produced inconsistent estimates and wide confidence intervals (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07 and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 months, additional improvement was found in both groups, but there continued to be no meaningful difference between those receiving occlusion and those receiving atropine therapies (moderate-certainty evidence).We did not find any difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity, or sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments were well tolerated. Atropine was associated with better adherence (moderate-certainty evidence) and quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), but also a higher reported risk of adverse events in terms of mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment and light sensitivity (high-certainty evidence). Skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation were more common among participants receiving patching than those receiving atropine (high-certainty evidence). Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the trials we analyzed.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31461545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006460.pub3 -
International Journal of Ophthalmology 2019To conduct a systematic review and Meta-analysis of the published literature to evaluate the pooled prevalence rate of amblyopia in patients with congenital ptosis.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review and Meta-analysis of the published literature to evaluate the pooled prevalence rate of amblyopia in patients with congenital ptosis.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chongqing VIP databases for studies reporting the prevalence of amblyopia in patients with congenital ptosis. The reference lists of relevant studies were scanned. Heterogeneity of effect sizes across studies was tested. We calculated prevalence ratios to compare prevalence estimates for different causes of amblyopia in patients with congenital ptosis, as well as for different geographical regions, year of publication and sample size in subgroup analyses. A systematic review and Meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
We identified 29 eligible surveys with a total population of 2436. Prevalence rates of amblyopia ranged from 13.8% to 69%. We noted substantial heterogeneity in prevalence estimates for amblyopia in congenital ptosis (Cochran's significant at <0.0001; =90%). The pooled prevalence using random-effects models of 29 studies was 32.8% (95%CI: 27.3%-38.4%) in the overall population. Compared to the overall pooled prevalence, amblyopia prevalence was higher in studies in which only subjects with blepharophimosis syndrome were included.
CONCLUSION
We confirm that nearly one-third of congenital ptosis patients are suffering from or at risk for amblyopia. Patients with blepharophimosis syndrome are more likely to develop amblyopia. The identification and management of amblyopia should be integral to the treatment of congenital ptosis.
PubMed: 31341812
DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2019.07.21 -
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Jul 2019Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis associated Uveitis (JIA-U) represents its most frequent extra-articular manifestation and the main cause of childhood uveitis in in...
BACKGROUND
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis associated Uveitis (JIA-U) represents its most frequent extra-articular manifestation and the main cause of childhood uveitis in in developed countries. The broad variety of outcome measures utilized makes the comparison of the disease course, risk for complications, impairment in visual function, and responses to treatment quite difficult. Our aim was to summarize evidence regarding the current availability of outcome measures in JIA-U.
METHODS
A systematic review between January 2000 and December 2018 was performed to identify studies investigating outcome measures used in JIA-U.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 8254 articles of which 89 were potentially eligible. After the full text revision, a total of 27 studies, including 2 RCTs, were included. Among these studies 12 outcome measures for JIA-U use have been identified (grade of cells in the AC, grade of flare in the AC, VA, amblyopia, structural complications, use and sparing of oral corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs, surgery requirement, biomarkers, bilateral disease, JIA persistence, quality of life assessments, uveitis subtype). As regards primary outcome measures, 44% among studies included one or more variables related to disease activity (i.e. grade of flare, grade of cells); 56% included visual function performance (i.e. visual acuity); 68% (17/25) included one or more variables of disease-associated tissue damage or complications (i.e. cataract, amblyopia); 24% included disease features (i.e. bilateral disease; uveitis subtype); 44% included laboratory features (i.e. biomarkers); 8% included JIA features (i.e. persistence of disease); 12% included quality of life (i.e. EYE-Q); 44% included management (i.e. use and sparing of oral corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs; surgery requirement).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review surveys the heterogeneity around outcome measures related to JIA-U in children, even in RCTs. It does not provide the solution to overcome the heterogeneity in uveitis studies, but it does provide an estimate of the scale of the problems and provides data to inform this important debate; highlighting the requirement to obtain a new consensus regarding a common approach to identify suitable and efficient outcome measures in JIA-U.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Amblyopia; Arthritis, Juvenile; Consensus; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Uveitis; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31296236
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-019-0330-9 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Jul 2019Amblyopia is a permanent visual impairment developed in early childhood. Recently, instrument-based photoscreeners have been widely used for vision screening to detect... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Amblyopia is a permanent visual impairment developed in early childhood. Recently, instrument-based photoscreeners have been widely used for vision screening to detect amblyopia risk factors, which is key for the prevention and treatment of amblyopia. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners in detecting risk factors for amblyopia in children.
METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed in October 2018 using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Twenty-one publications with a total of 5022 subjects were included. Subjects given a comprehensive examination were considered to have amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors based on the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) referral criteria guidelines.
RESULTS
The overall sensitivity for Spot and Plusoptix was 87.7% and 89.4%, respectively (p = 0.38); the specificity was 78.0% and 89.9%, respectively (p = 0.90). For subjects under 7 years old (preschool children), the overall sensitivity for Spot and Plusoptix was 91.7% and 90.2%, respectively (p = 0.81); the specificity was 82.6% and 93.0%, respectively (p = 0.46).
CONCLUSION
Both Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity in detecting amblyopia risk factors in children, especially at preschool ages. There was no significant difference in diagnostic test accuracy between them.
Topics: Amblyopia; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Vision Screening
PubMed: 31236980
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12628