Search

Background: Current treatments for amblyopia, typically patching or pharmacological blurring, have limited success. Less than two-thirds of children achieve good acuity of 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor adherence to treatment. A new approach, based on presentation of movies or computer games separately to each eye, may yield better results and improve adherence. These treatments aim to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain.  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether binocular treatments in children, aged three to eight years, with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional patching or pharmacological blurring treatment., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to 19 November 2020, with no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search for relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia. Amblyopia was classed as present when the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor, such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. To be eligible, children needed to have undergone cycloplegic refraction and  ophthalmic examination, including fundal examination and optical treatment, if indicated, with stable BCVA in the amblyopic eye despite good adherence with wearing glasses. We included any type of binocular viewing intervention, on any device (e.g. computer monitors viewed with liquid-crystal display shutter glasses; hand-held screens, including mobile phones with lenticular prism overlay; or virtual reality displays). Control groups received standard amblyopia treatment, which could include patching or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We included full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) patching regimens. We excluded children who had received any treatment other than optical treatment; and studies with less than 8-week follow-up., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome of the review was the change from baseline of distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye after 16 (± 2) weeks of treatment, measured in logMAR units on an age-appropriate acuity test., Main Results: We identified one eligible RCT of conventional patching treatment versus novel binocular treatment, and analysed a subset of 68 children who fulfilled the age criterion of this review. We obtained data for the mean change in amblyopic eye visual acuity, adverse events (diplopia), and adherence to prescribed treatment at 8- and 16-week follow-up intervals, though no data were available for change in BCVA after 52 weeks. Risk of bias for the included study was considered to be low. The certainty of evidence for the visual acuity outcomes at 8 and 16 weeks of treatment and adherence to the study intervention was rated moderate using the GRADE criteria, downgrading by one level due to imprecision. The certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels and rated low for the proportion of participants reporting adverse events due to the sample size.  Acuity improved in the amblyopic eye in both the binocular and patching groups following 16 weeks of treatment (improvement of -0.21 logMAR in the binocular group and -0.24 logMAR in the patching group, mean difference (MD) 0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.04; 63 children). This difference was non-significant and the improvements in both the binocular and patching groups are also considered clinically similar. Following 8 weeks of treatment, acuity improved in both the binocular and patching groups (improvement of -0.18 logMAR in the patching group compared to -0.16 logMAR improvement in the binocular-treatment group) (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08). Again this difference was statistically non-significant, and the differences observed between the patching and binocular groups are also clinically non-significant. No adverse event of permanent diplopia was reported. Adherence was higher in the patching group (47% of participants in the iPad group achieved over 75% compliance compared with 90% of the patching group).  Data were not available for changes in stereopsis nor for contrast sensitivity following treatment., Authors' Conclusions: Currently, there is only one RCT that offers evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatment. The authors are moderately confident that after 16 weeks of treatment, the gain in amblyopic eye acuity with binocular treatment is likely comparable to that of conventional patching treatment. However, due to the limited sample size and lack of long term (52 week) follow-up data, it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions regarding the overall safety and sustained effectiveness of binocular treatment. Further research, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility, is required to inform decisions about the implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice, and should incorporate longer term follow-up to establish the effectiveness of binocular treatment. Randomised controlled trials should also include outcomes reported by users, adherence to prescribed treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction or Background: With a prevalence of 2-5%, amblyopia is the most common vision deficit in children in the UK and the second most common cause of functional low vision in children in low-income countries., Sources of Data: Pubmed, Cochrane library and clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN, UKCRN portfolio database)., Areas of Agreement: Screening and treatment at the age of 4-5 years are cost efficient and clinically effective. Optical treatment (glasses) alone can improve visual acuity, with residual amblyopia treated by part-time occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. Treatment after the end of the conventional 'critical period' can improve vision, but in strabismic amblyopia carries a low risk of double vision., Areas of Controversy: It is not clear whether earlier vision screening would be cost efficient and associated with better outcomes. Optimization of treatment by individualized patching regimes or early start of occlusion, and novel binocular treatment approaches may enhance adherence to treatment, provide better outcomes and shorten treatment duration., Growing Points: Binocular treatments for amblyopia., Areas Timely for Developing Research: Impact of amblyopia on education and quality of life; optimal screening timing and tests; optimal administration of conventional treatments; development of child-friendly, effective and safe binocular treatments., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Current treatments for amblyopia in children, occlusion and pharmacological blurring, have had limited success, with less than two-thirds of children achieving good visual acuity of at least 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor compliance. A new treatment approach, based on the dichoptic presentation of movies or computer games (images presented separately to each eye), may yield better results, as it aims to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain. Compliance may also improve with these more child-friendly treatment procedures., Objectives: To determine whether binocular treatments in children aged three to eight years with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional occlusion or pharmacological blurring treatment., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (last date of searches: 14 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), 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., Selection Criteria: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search in order to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled participants between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia, defined as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, and BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. Prior to enrolment, participants were to have undergone a cycloplegic refraction and comprehensive ophthalmic examination including fundal examination. In addition, participants had to have completed a period of optical treatment, if indicated, and BCVA in the amblyopic eye had to remain unchanged on two consecutive assessments despite reportedly good compliance with glasses wearing. Participants were not to have received any treatment other than optical treatment prior to enrolment. We planned to include any type of binocular viewing intervention; these could be delivered on different devices including computer monitors viewed with LCD shutter glasses or hand-held screens including mobile phone screens with lenticular prism overlay. Control groups were to have received standard amblyopia treatment; this could include occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We planned to include full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) occlusion regimens., Data Collection and Analysis: We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We had planned to meta-analyse the primary outcome, that is mean distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye at 12 months after the cessation of treatment., Main Results: We could identify no RCTs in this subject area., Authors' Conclusions: Further research is required to allow decisions about implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice. Currently there are no clinical trials offering standardised evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatments, but results from non-controlled cohort studies are encouraging. Future research should be conducted in the form of RCTs, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility. Other important outcome measures include outcomes reported by users, compliance with treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.

Background/aim: The COMPlog clinical visual acuity measuring system is being developed for both routine and research use. This study aimed to validate its performance in amblyopic children and both normal and diseased adults against the gold standard ETDRS chart and the E-ETDRS computerised acuity measurement algorithm., Method: Timed test and retest fully interpolated five letters per line logMAR visual acuity measurements were taken for 70 adults and 59 amblyopic children using the ETDRS chart and the COMPlog visual acuity measurement system. 39 of the adults also underwent computerised acuity testing using the E-ETDRS testing algorithm. The tested adults included normals as well as subjects with a range of ocular diseases. The methods of Bland and Altman were employed with test-retest variability (TRV) expressed as 95% confidence limits for agreement., Results: No significant bias was observed between the gold standard ETDRS acuity measurements and those taken with either COMPlog or E-ETDRS. TRVs of +/-0.12 logMAR and +/-0.10 logMAR were respectively found for COMPlog measurements in the amblyopic children and adult groups compared with +/-0.12 logMAR for the ETDRS chart in both groups. The TRV of the E-ETDRS system was slightly greater at +/-0.16 logMAR. Median testing times for COMPlog and ETDRS were 95 and 85 s and 66 and 56 s respectively in the paediatric and adult groups and 120 s for the E-ETDRS measurements on adults., Discussion: COMPlog measurements agree well with and are similarly reliable to the gold standard ETDRS chart with comparable test times. E-ETDRS algorithm measurements took approximately twice as long.