Comparison between binocular therapy and patching for treatment of amblyopia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Computer-Assisted Visual Training in Children and Adolescents with Developmental Visual Disorders

BACKGROUND

In this systematic review, we address the question whether children and adolescents with developmental visual disorders benefit from computer-assisted visual training.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were carried out in three bibliographic databases (initial search in October 2021) and trial registries. Included were randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of computer-assisted visual training in children and adolescents with developmental visual disorders in comparison to no training, sham training, or conservative treatment.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by 17 trials (with a total of 1323 children and adolescents) focusing on binocular or monocular computer-assisted visual training for the treatment of amblyopia. In these trials, visual training was carried out for 2 to 24 weeks, either as "stand alone" therapy or in addition to occlusion therapy. Six trials showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the visual training for the outcome "best corrected visual acuity of the amblyopic eye." However, this difference was small and mostly below the threshold of clinical relevance of -0.05 logMAR (equivalent to an improvement of 0.5 lines on the eye chart, or 2.5 letters per line). Only few data were available for the outcomes "binocular vision" and "adverse events"; the differences between the groups were similarly small.

CONCLUSION

The currently available data do not permit any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of visual training in children and adolescents with amblyopia. Moreover, treatment adherence was often insufficient and the treatment durations in the trials was relatively short. No results from randomized trials have yet been published with respect to other developmental visual disorders (refractive errors, strabismus).

Amblyopia: progress and promise of functional magnetic resonance imaging

Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by functional deficits in the visual cortex. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is the most commonly used neuroimaging technique for investigating amblyopia. Herein, we systematically searched a PubMed database from inception to December 2021 to highlight the current progress and promises about fMRI technology in amblyopia; amblyopia's neural mechanism, the comparison of different types of amblyopia, and the evaluation of the therapeutic effect were explored. Relevant articles published in English and appropriate cross-references were considered for inclusion, including basic studies, imaging techniques, clinical diagnostic and therapeutic studies, case series, and reviews.

Binocular treatment for amblyopia: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

To date, there is still no consensus regarding the effect of binocular treatment for amblyopia. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence to determine whether binocular treatment is more effective than patching in children with amblyopia.

Methods

Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies that compared binocular treatment and patching in children with amblyopia. The outcome measures were visual acuity and stereopsis. Pooled effects sizes were calculated with a random-effect model. The standardized difference in means (SDM) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed.

Results

Five randomized clinical trials were included. No significant difference in visual acuity between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.45–0.20; P = 0.464). No significant difference in stereopsis between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.61–0.48; P = 0.809). For both variables, the between-study heterogeneity was high (respectively, I² = 61% and I² = 57%).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis found no convincing evidence supporting the efficacy of binocular treatment as an alternative to conventional patching. Therefore, the binocular treatment cannot fully replace traditional treatment but, to date, it can be considered a valid complementary therapy in peculiar cases. Further studies are required to determine whether more engaging therapies and new treatment protocols are more effective.