-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Amblyopia is commonly associated with squint (strabismus) or refractive errors resulting in different visual inputs to each eye during the sensitive period of visual... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amblyopia is commonly associated with squint (strabismus) or refractive errors resulting in different visual inputs to each eye during the sensitive period of visual development (<7-8 years of age). The cumulative incidence is estimated at 2% to 4% in children aged up to 15 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to detect amblyopia early? What are the effects of medical treatments for amblyopia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: active vision therapy; glasses alone or with occlusion; or penalisation to treat amblyopia; and screening to detect amblyopia early.
Topics: Amblyopia; Eyeglasses; Humans; Refractive Errors; Sensory Deprivation; Strabismus; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 21714945
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2009Amblyopia is commonly associated with squint (strabismus) or refractive errors resulting in different visual inputs to each eye during the sensitive period of visual... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amblyopia is commonly associated with squint (strabismus) or refractive errors resulting in different visual inputs to each eye during the sensitive period of visual development (<7-8 years of age). The cumulative incidence is estimated at 2% to 4% in children aged up to 15 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to detect amblyopia early? What are the effects of medical treatments for amblyopia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: active vision therapy; glasses alone or with occlusion; or penalisation to treat amblyopia; and screening to detect amblyopia early.
Topics: Amblyopia; Eyeglasses; Humans; Mydriatics; Sensory Deprivation; Strabismus; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 21726480
DOI: No ID Found -
Eye (London, England) Apr 2011Amblyopia is a common condition, which can affect up to 5% of the general population. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) implications of amblyopia and/or its... (Review)
Review
Amblyopia is a common condition, which can affect up to 5% of the general population. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment have been explored in the literature. A systematic literature search was undertaken during the period of 7-14 May 2010 to identify the HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment. A total of 35 papers were included in the literature review. The HRQoL implications of amblyopia related specifically to amblyopia treatment, rather than to the condition itself. These included impact on family life, social interactions, difficulties in undertaking daily activities, as well as feelings and behaviour. The identified studies adopted a number of methodologies. The study populations included children with the condition, parents of children with amblyopia, and adults who had undertaken amblyopia treatment as a child. Some studies developed their own measures of HRQoL, and others determined HRQoL through proxy measures. The reported findings of the HRQoL implications are of importance when considering the management of cases of amblyopia. The issues identified in the literature review are discussed with respect to how HRQoL is measured (treatment compliance vs proxy measures), and whether HRQoL is taken from a child's or a parent's perspective. Changing societal views over glasses and occlusion therapy are also discussed. Further research is required to assess the immediate and long-term effects of amblyopia and/or its treatment on HRQoL using a more standardised approach.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adult; Amblyopia; Child; Child, Preschool; Family; Health Status; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Parents; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 21274010
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.4 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2022Epidemiological data about the prevalence of amblyopia around the world vary widely among regions and periods. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the global...
Epidemiological data about the prevalence of amblyopia around the world vary widely among regions and periods. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the global prevalence of amblyopia in children. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for prevalence studies published up to 5 November 2021. The outcome was the prevalence of amblyopia, analyzed as pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 97 studies were included, including 4,645,274 children and 7,706 patients with amblyopia. The overall worldwide pooled prevalence of amblyopia was 1.36% (95%CI: 1.27-1.46%). The prevalence of amblyopia was higher in males (1.40%, 95%CI: 1.10-1.70%) than in females (1.24%, 95%CI: 0.94-1.54%) ( = 0.885, 95%CI: 0.795-0.985, = 0.025). The results of the meta-regression analysis showed that there were no significant associations between the prevalence of amblyopia and geographical area, publication year, age, sample size, and whether it was carried out in a developed or developing country (all > 0.05). Begg's test ( = 0.065) and Egger's test ( < 0.001) showed that there was a significant publication bias in the prevalence of amblyopia. In conclusion, amblyopia is a significant vision problem worldwide, and public health strategies of early screening, treatment, and management are important.
PubMed: 35601430
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.819998 -
Journal of Current Ophthalmology Sep 2018The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of amblyopia in the population of Iran. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of amblyopia in the population of Iran.
METHODS
This article is a systematic review. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Ovid, Web of Science, SID, Magiran, with appropriate terms. Information related to the sample size and the prevalence of amblyopia was extracted and summarized in tables. Analysis was performed using STATA software.
RESULTS
From 551 articles that were originally extracted from the databases, 31 articles met the criteria for entering the review. These studies were conducted in different regions of Iran. The prevalence of amblyopia in different regions varied between 0.19 and 3.69%. Study results were heterogeneous (I = 99.7%), and therefore, a meta-analysis was not done.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of amblyopia in Iran is very different. In addition to conducting national screenings, it is necessary to report the incidence of amblyopia and its related factors in different parts of the country.
PubMed: 30197947
DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2018.02.003 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Amblyopia is reduced visual acuity in one or both eyes in the absence of any demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway. It is not immediately resolved by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia is reduced visual acuity in one or both eyes in the absence of any demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway. It is not immediately resolved by the correction of refractive error. Strabismus develops in approximately 5% to 8% of the general population. The aim of treatment for amblyopia is to obtain the best possible level of vision in the amblyopic eye. Different treatment options were examined within the review.
OBJECTIVES
By reviewing the available evidence we wanted to establish the most effective treatment for strabismic amblyopia. In particular this review aimed to examine the impact of conventional occlusion therapy for strabismic amblyopia and to analyse the role of partial occlusion and optical penalisation for strabismic amblyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2013, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 30 January 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of strabismic amblyopia including participants of any age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors working independently extracted and entered data into Review Manager 5 and then independently checked the data for errors.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs in this review. The studies reported mean logMAR visual acuity achieved. Mean difference in visual acuity was calculated. When comparing conventional part-time occlusion (with any necessary glasses), PEDIG 2006 reported that this treatment was more beneficial than glasses alone for strabismic amblyopia; the mean difference between groups was -0.18 LogMAR (statistically significant 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.32 to -0.04). Supplementing occlusion therapy with near activities may produce a better visual outcome compared to non-near activities after four weeks of treatment (PEDIG 2005). The results of the pilot study showed mean difference between groups was -0.17 LogMAR (95% CI -0.53 to 0.19). Results from a larger RCT (PEDIG 2008) are now available, showing that supplementing occlusion therapy with near activities may produce a better visual outcome after eight weeks of treatment; the mean difference between groups was -0.02 LogMAR (95% CI -0.10 to 0.06). One further article ia awaiting assessment as in its current format there is insufficient information to include (Alotaibi 2012).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Occlusion, whilst wearing necessary refractive correction, appears to be more effective than refractive correction alone in the treatment of strabismic amblyopia. The benefit of combining near activities with occlusion is unproven. No RCTs were found that assessed the role of either partial occlusion or optical penalisation to refractive correction for strabismic amblyopia.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child; Child, Preschool; Eyeglasses; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensory Deprivation; Strabismus; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 25051925
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006461.pub4 -
Clinical & Experimental Optometry Jul 2018Despite evidence that amblyopia can often be treated by optical treatment alone, many practitioners still do not use an optical-correction-only phase in amblyopia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite evidence that amblyopia can often be treated by optical treatment alone, many practitioners still do not use an optical-correction-only phase in amblyopia treatment and some investigators omit this important step in their research. This paper aims to systematically review the evidence for the optical treatment of strabismic, refractive and combined-mechanism amblyopia and to quantify the evidence via a meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of online databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of review papers, along with subsequent personal communication, resulted in 29 papers that met our inclusion criteria, with 20 providing sufficient data for the calculation of effect sizes. A meta-analysis was performed to determine effect sizes and the heterogeneity thereof. Meta-regression was used to evaluate the contribution of the possible moderating factors of age, duration of optical correction, and initial visual acuity to the heterogeneity of the studies. In addition, effect sizes were analysed in subgroups based on amblyopia aetiology, that is refractive or strabismic or combined, and also in the fellow eyes.
RESULTS
No evidence of publication bias in the included studies was found using a Galbraith plot. Optical treatment of amblyopia resulted in a large positive effect size of 1.07 (±0.49, 95 per cent confidence limits) on visual acuity, although the heterogeneity was significant (Q = 597.05, I = 96.65 per cent, p < 0.0001). Meta-regression indicated that effect sizes significantly decreased with age, increased with treatment duration, and that better initial acuity was associated with higher effect sizes.
CONCLUSION
Effect sizes were always moderate to large, whether participants were younger or older children, or whether the aetiology was refractive or strabismic. Thus, optical treatment of amblyopia should be considered prior to other treatment in those with refractive error. Improved acuity before initiating other treatment would presumably make occlusion or penalisation less onerous and may improve compliance with further treatment.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child, Preschool; Eyeglasses; Humans; Infant; Refraction, Ocular; Vision Tests; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 29392811
DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12657 -
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 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a new safe and efficient tool for the rehabilitation of many childhood and adulthood illnesses. VR-based therapies have the potential...
Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a new safe and efficient tool for the rehabilitation of many childhood and adulthood illnesses. VR-based therapies have the potential to improve both motor and functional skills in a wide range of age groups through cortical reorganization and the activation of various neuronal connections. Recently, the potential for using serious VR-based games that combine perceptual learning and dichoptic stimulation has been explored for the rehabilitation of ophthalmological and neurological disorders. In ophthalmology, several clinical studies have demonstrated the ability to use VR training to enhance stereopsis, contrast sensitivity, and visual acuity. The use of VR technology provides a significant advantage in training each eye individually without requiring occlusion or penalty. In neurological disorders, the majority of patients undergo recurrent episodes (relapses) of neurological impairment, however, in a few cases (60-80%), the illness progresses over time and becomes chronic, consequential in cumulated motor disability and cognitive deficits. Current research on memory restoration has been spurred by theories about brain plasticity and findings concerning the nervous system's capacity to reconstruct cellular synapses as a result of interaction with enriched environments. Therefore, the use of VR training can play an important role in the improvement of cognitive function and motor disability. Although there are several reviews in the community employing relevant Artificial Intelligence in healthcare, VR has not yet been thoroughly examined in this regard. In this systematic review, we examine the key ideas of VR-based training for prevention and control measurements in ocular diseases such as Myopia, Amblyopia, Presbyopia, and Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD), and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Epilepsy and Autism spectrum disorder. This review highlights the fundamentals of VR technologies regarding their clinical research in healthcare. Moreover, these findings will raise community awareness of using VR training and help researchers to learn new techniques to prevent and cure different diseases. We further discuss the current challenges of using VR devices, as well as the future prospects of human training.
Topics: Humans; Child; Artificial Intelligence; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Disabled Persons; Motor Disorders; Virtual Reality; Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 37033028
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1143947