Binocular treatment for amblyopia: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
<h4>Background</h4>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 c...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/26f22dba6f20400f8e37aa6548f333e4 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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%).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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. |
|---|