-
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2021To examine the quantitative measurements of OCTA in children with amblyopia using the meta-analysis methodology. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for...
To examine the quantitative measurements of OCTA in children with amblyopia using the meta-analysis methodology. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for available papers up to March 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were used to compare the retina parameters between the eyes with amblyopia and the contralateral eyes or healthy control eyes. Twelve studies were included. When considering the parafovea, the microvessel density was reduced in amblyopic eyes compared with healthy control eyes in the superficial capillary plexus (SCP) in 6 × 6 volume scan (WMD = -2.12, 95%CI: -3.24, -0.99) but not SCP in 3 × 3 volume scan (WMD = -1.43, 95%CI: -2.96, 0.11). In the deep capillary plexus (DCP), amblyopia did not decrease vessel density in the 6 × 6 volume scan (WMD = -2.22, 95%CI: -5.86, 1.42; = 79.6%, = 0.008), but a difference was observed in the whole eye 3 × 3 (WMD = -1.95, 95%CI: -3.23, -0.67; = 27.5%, = 0.252). There were no significant differences in the foveal avascular zone area and foveal thickness between amblyopic eyes and healthy control eyes. There were no significant differences in microvessel density, foveal avascular zone area, and foveal thickness between amblyopic eyes and fellow eyes. According to OCTA, amblyopic eyes had lower vessel density in parafoveal SCP and DCP compared with healthy control eyes, but not compared with fellow eyes. There were no significant differences regarding the foveal avascular zone area and foveal thickness between amblyopic and non-amblyopic eyes.
PubMed: 34095020
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.620565 -
BMJ Open Ophthalmology 2021To identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4-17 years old.
OBJECTIVE
To identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4-17 years old.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid Embase, PubMed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, Vision Cite and Scopus were systematically searched from 1975 to 17 June 2020.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers screened search results for randomised controlled trials of vision-based amblyopia treatments that specified change in amblyopic eye VA (logMAR) as the primary outcome measure. Quality was assessed via risk of bias and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations).
RESULTS
Of the 3346 studies identified, 36 were included in a narrative synthesis. A random effects meta-analysis (five studies) compared the efficacy of binocular treatments versus patching: mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04 (p<0.001), favouring patching. An exploratory study-level regression (18 studies) showed no statistically significant differences between vision-based treatments and a reference group of 2-5 hours of patching. Age, sample size and pre-randomisation optical treatment were not statistically significantly associated with changes in amblyopic eye acuity. A network meta-analysis (26 studies) comparing vision-based treatments to patching 2-5 hours found one statistically significant comparison, namely, the favouring of a combination of two treatment arms comparing combination and binocular treatments, against patching 2-5 hours: standard mean difference: 2.63; 95% CI 1.18 to 4.09. However, this result was an indirect comparison calculated from a single study. A linear regression analysis (17 studies) found a significant relationship between adherence and effect size, but the model did not completely fit the data: regression coefficient 0.022; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.040 (p=0.02).
CONCLUSION
We found no clinically relevant differences in treatment efficacy between the treatments included in this review. Adherence to the prescribed hours of treatment varied considerably and may have had an effect on treatment success.
PubMed: 33912684
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000657 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 17 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 11 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.63 to -0.2). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression in people with co-morbidity.
Topics: Age Factors; Amblyopia; Chronic Disease; Community Health Services; Disease Management; Growth Disorders; Health Behavior; Health Personnel; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Medication Adherence; Multimorbidity; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient-Centered Care; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33448337
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006560.pub4 -
Romanian Journal of Ophthalmology 2020to assess the prevalence of Amblyopia disease in the children of the world. In order to perform this systematic review, PICO was considered as the research question....
to assess the prevalence of Amblyopia disease in the children of the world. In order to perform this systematic review, PICO was considered as the research question. Then, the preferred keywords were searched in Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases. The retrieved citations were reviewed by two independent inspectors in a three-step process in terms of the title, abstract, and full-text, based on the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review were critically evaluated and then were extracted by two dependent expert reviewers. Finally, the prevalence of Amblyopia disease in the children of the world was pooled by meta-analysis CMA v.2 software. The heterogeneity of the selected studies was evaluated using I2 and chi-square. Also, subgroup-analysis was performed using designs and continents. Out of 952 retrieved citations, 131 studies were included. The total prevalence of Amblyopia in the children of the world was calculated to be 4.3% [Pooled Prevalence: 4.3%, 95% CI: 2.6%-7.00%, P-value 0.0001]. In addition, the heterogeneity of the studies was reported to be high (Q: 48281.18, df: 56, p-value 0.001, I-square: 99.88). The subgroup analysis showed that America had the highest (5.57%, 95% CI: 2.23%-13.94%, P-value 0.0001) prevalence, and the lowest prevalence of Amblyopia in the children of the world was seen in Africa (7.1%, 95% CI: 0.003%-172.53%, P-value 0.05). It can be concluded that the total prevalence of Amblyopia is 3.4%, but this estimate varies in all continents, especially in Africa. The major reason for this variation was reported to be the heterogeneity of studies. These assessments have investigated different populations in terms of severity of illness, age, and gender. Therefore, further worldwide high-quality and valid studies should be carried out to allow the calculation of the real prevalence of Amblyopia among children of the world. VA = visual acuity, ALSPAC = Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, JBI = Joanna Briggs Institute, PRISMA = Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, CMA = Comprehensive Meta-analysis Software.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child; Global Health; Humans; Prevalence
PubMed: 33367172
DOI: 10.22336/rjo.2020.56 -
Eye (London, England) Mar 2021Amblyopia screening can target reduced visual acuity (VA), its refractive risk factors, or both. VA testing is imprecise under 4 years of age, so automated risk-factor... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia screening can target reduced visual acuity (VA), its refractive risk factors, or both. VA testing is imprecise under 4 years of age, so automated risk-factor photoscreening appears an attractive option. This review considers photoscreening used in community services, focusing on costs, cost-effectiveness and scope of use, compared with EUSCREEN project Country Reports describing how photo- and automated screening is used internationally.
METHODS
A systematic narrative review was carried out of all English language photoscreening literature to September 10th 2018, using publicly available search terms. Where costs were considered, a CASP economic evaluation checklist was used to assess data quality.
RESULTS
Of 370 abstracts reviewed, 55 reported large-scale community photoscreening projects. Five addressed cost-effectiveness specifically, without original data. Photoscreening was a stand-alone, single, test event in 71% of projects. In contrast, 25 of 45 EUSCREEN Country Reports showed that if adopted, photoscreening often supplements other tests in established programmes and is rarely used as a stand-alone test. Reported costs varied widely and evidence of cost-effectiveness was sparse in the literature, or in international practice. Only eight (13%) papers compared the diagnostic accuracy or cost-effectiveness of photoscreening and VA testing, and when they did, cost-effectiveness of photoscreening compared unfavourably.
DISCUSSION
Evidence that photoscreening reduces amblyopia or strabismus prevalence or improves overall outcomes is weak, as is evidence of cost-effectiveness, compared to later VA screening. Currently, the most cost-effective option seems to be a later, expert VA screening with the opportunity for a re-test before referral.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Strabismus; Vision Disorders; Vision Screening
PubMed: 33257800
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-01261-8 -
Journal of Ophthalmology 2020The aim of the study was evaluation of the scientific evidence about the efficacy of vision therapy in children and teenagers with anisometropic amblyopia by performing... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of the study was evaluation of the scientific evidence about the efficacy of vision therapy in children and teenagers with anisometropic amblyopia by performing a systematic literature review.
METHODS
A search was performed using 3 searching strategies in 4 different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PruQuest). The quality of the included articles was evaluated using two tools for the risk of bias assessment, ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies of intervention (NRSI), and ROB 2.0 for randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
The search showed 1274 references, but only 8 of them passed the inclusion criteria after the complete text review. The articles that were finally included comprised 2 randomized control trials and 6 nonrandomized studies of intervention. These articles provided evidence supporting the efficacy of vision therapy for the treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children and teenagers. Assessment of the risk of bias showed an appropriate risk of bias for the randomized control trials, but a high risk of bias for nonrandomized studies of intervention (NRSI). A main source of risk of bias for NRSI was the domain related to the measurements of the outcomes, due to a lack of double-blind studies.
CONCLUSION
Vision therapy is a promising option for the treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children and teenagers. However, the level of scientific evidence provided by the studies revised is still limited, and further randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results provided to date and to optimize the vision therapy techniques by knowing the specific neural mechanisms involved.
PubMed: 32733699
DOI: 10.1155/2020/4282316 -
Documenta Ophthalmologica. Advances in... Feb 2021Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to measure visual resolution via a spatial frequency (SF) limit as an objective estimate of visual acuity. The aim of this... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to measure visual resolution via a spatial frequency (SF) limit as an objective estimate of visual acuity. The aim of this systematic review is to collate descriptions of the VEP SF limit in humans, healthy and disordered, and to assess how accurately and precisely VEP SF limits reflect visual acuity.
METHODS
The protocol methodology followed the PRISMA statement. Multiple databases were searched using "VEP" and "acuity" and associated terms, plus hand search: titles, abstracts or full text were reviewed for eligibility. Data extracted included VEP SF limits, stimulus protocols, VEP recording and analysis techniques and correspondence with behavioural acuity for normally sighted healthy adults, typically developing infants and children, healthy adults with artificially degraded vision and patients with ophthalmic or neurological conditions.
RESULTS
A total of 155 studies are included. Commonly used stimulus, recording and analysis techniques are summarised. Average healthy adult VEP SF limits vary from 15 to 40 cpd, depend on stimulus, recording and analysis techniques and are often, but not always, poorer than behavioural acuity measured either psychophysically with an identical stimulus or with a clinical acuity test. The difference between VEP SF limit and behavioural acuity is variable and strongly dependent on the VEP stimulus and choice of acuity test. VEP SF limits mature rapidly, from 1.5 to 9 cpd by the end of the first month of life to 12-20 cpd by 8-12 months, with slower improvement to 20-40 cpd by 3-5 years. VEP SF limits are much better than behavioural thresholds in the youngest, typically developing infants. This difference lessens with age and reaches equivalence between 1 and 2 years; from around 3-5 years, behavioural acuity is better than the VEP SF limit, as for adults. Healthy, artificially blurred adults had slightly better behavioural acuity than VEP SF limits across a wide range of acuities, while adults with heterogeneous ophthalmic or neurological pathologies causing reduced acuity showed a much wider and less consistent relationship. For refractive error, ocular media opacity or pathology primarily affecting the retina, VEP SF limits and behavioural acuity had a fairly consistent relationship across a wide range of acuity. This relationship was much less consistent or close for primarily macular, optic nerve or neurological conditions such as amblyopia. VEP SF limits were almost always normal in patients with non-organic visual acuity loss.
CONCLUSIONS
The VEP SF limit has great utility as an objective acuity estimator, especially in pre-verbal children or patients of any age with motor or learning impairments which prevent reliable measurement of behavioural acuity. Its diagnostic power depends heavily on adequate, age-stratified, reference data, age-stratified empirical calibration with behavioural acuity, and interpretation in the light of other electrophysiological and clinical findings. Future developments could encompass faster, more objective and robust techniques such as real-time, adaptive control.
REGISTRATION
International prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ), registration number CRD42018085666.
Topics: Adult; Amblyopia; Child; Child, Preschool; Electroretinography; Evoked Potentials, Visual; Humans; Infant; Vision, Ocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32488810
DOI: 10.1007/s10633-020-09770-3 -
BMC Ophthalmology May 2020Many treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia.
METHODS
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included: refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) expressed as log MAR lines. Direct comparisons and a Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to synthesize data.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies with 3279 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, optical penalization was the least effective of all the treatments for the change of visual acuity, spectacles (mean difference [MD], 2.9 Log MAR lines; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.8-4.0), patch 2H (MD, 3.3; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.3), patch 6H (MD, 3.6; 95% CrI, 2.6-4.6), patch 12H (MD, 3.4; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.5), patch 2H + N (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.5-5.0), patch 2H + D (MD, 3.5; 95% CrI, 2.1-5.0), Atr daily (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly + Plano (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.7-4.7), binocular therapy (MD, 3.1; 95% CrI, 2.0-4.2). The patch 6H and patch 2H + N were better than spectacles ([MD, 0.73; 95% Crl, 0.10-1.40]; [MD, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.19-1.50]).
CONCLUSIONS
The NMA indicated that the efficacy of the most of the examined treatment modalities for amblyopia were comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42019119843.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Databases, Factual; Eyeglasses; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Sensory Deprivation; Treatment Outcome; Vision, Binocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32450849
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-020-01442-9 -
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 -
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