Viewing distance does not affect fixation stability in patients with AMD. Fixation stability data recorded with an instrument at a fixed viewing distance can be related to performance on visual tasks at other viewing distances.
ObjectiveTo 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 sourcesOvid Embase, PubMed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, Vision Cite and Scopus were systematically searched from 1975 to 17 June 2020.MethodsTwo 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).ResultsOf 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).ConclusionWe 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.
For most patients with bilateral central field loss, the repeatability of estimated BCEA and PRL eccentricity and meridian is good. When repeated estimates of fixation parameters do not agree, the absence of a well-developed PRL or the use of multiple PRLs may be suspected.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.