Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia.

Tianjing Li, Kate Shotton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Amblyopia is defined as defective visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion versus atropine penalization for amblyopia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, preference lists, science citation index and ongoing trials up to June 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened abstracts and full text articles, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 525 amblyopic eyes were included. One trial was assessed as having a low risk of bias among these three trials, and one was assessed as having a high risk of bias.Evidence from three trials suggests atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. One trial found similar improvement in vision at six and 24 months. At six months, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved from baseline 3.16 lines in the occlusion and 2.84 lines in the atropine group (mean difference 0.034 logMAR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.005 to 0.064 logMAR). At 24 months, additional improvement was seen in both groups; but there continued to be no meaningful difference (mean difference 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04 logMAR). The second trial reported atropine to be more effective than occlusion. At six months, visual acuity improved 1.8 lines in the patching group and 3.4 lines in the atropine penalization group, and was in favor of atropine (mean difference -0.16 logMAR; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR). Different occlusion modalities were used in these two trials. The third trial had inherent methodological flaws and limited inference could be drawn.No difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity and sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization was found. Although both treatments were well tolerated, compliance was better in atropine. Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion. The results indicate that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Amblyopia
Atropine
Visual Acuity
Confidence Intervals
Visual Pathways
MEDLINE
Compliance
Glass
Registries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia. / Li, Tianjing; Shotton, Kate.

In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, No. 4, 2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3c92b07749134726acec49dd77897151,
title = "Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia.",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Amblyopia is defined as defective visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion versus atropine penalization for amblyopia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, preference lists, science citation index and ongoing trials up to June 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened abstracts and full text articles, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 525 amblyopic eyes were included. One trial was assessed as having a low risk of bias among these three trials, and one was assessed as having a high risk of bias.Evidence from three trials suggests atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. One trial found similar improvement in vision at six and 24 months. At six months, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved from baseline 3.16 lines in the occlusion and 2.84 lines in the atropine group (mean difference 0.034 logMAR; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.005 to 0.064 logMAR). At 24 months, additional improvement was seen in both groups; but there continued to be no meaningful difference (mean difference 0.01 logMAR; 95{\%} CI -0.02 to 0.04 logMAR). The second trial reported atropine to be more effective than occlusion. At six months, visual acuity improved 1.8 lines in the patching group and 3.4 lines in the atropine penalization group, and was in favor of atropine (mean difference -0.16 logMAR; 95{\%} CI -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR). Different occlusion modalities were used in these two trials. The third trial had inherent methodological flaws and limited inference could be drawn.No difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity and sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization was found. Although both treatments were well tolerated, compliance was better in atropine. Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion. The results indicate that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.",
author = "Tianjing Li and Kate Shotton",
year = "2009",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1361-6137",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia.

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Shotton, Kate

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - BACKGROUND: Amblyopia is defined as defective visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion versus atropine penalization for amblyopia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, preference lists, science citation index and ongoing trials up to June 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened abstracts and full text articles, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 525 amblyopic eyes were included. One trial was assessed as having a low risk of bias among these three trials, and one was assessed as having a high risk of bias.Evidence from three trials suggests atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. One trial found similar improvement in vision at six and 24 months. At six months, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved from baseline 3.16 lines in the occlusion and 2.84 lines in the atropine group (mean difference 0.034 logMAR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.005 to 0.064 logMAR). At 24 months, additional improvement was seen in both groups; but there continued to be no meaningful difference (mean difference 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04 logMAR). The second trial reported atropine to be more effective than occlusion. At six months, visual acuity improved 1.8 lines in the patching group and 3.4 lines in the atropine penalization group, and was in favor of atropine (mean difference -0.16 logMAR; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR). Different occlusion modalities were used in these two trials. The third trial had inherent methodological flaws and limited inference could be drawn.No difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity and sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization was found. Although both treatments were well tolerated, compliance was better in atropine. Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion. The results indicate that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.

AB - BACKGROUND: Amblyopia is defined as defective visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion versus atropine penalization for amblyopia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, preference lists, science citation index and ongoing trials up to June 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened abstracts and full text articles, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 525 amblyopic eyes were included. One trial was assessed as having a low risk of bias among these three trials, and one was assessed as having a high risk of bias.Evidence from three trials suggests atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. One trial found similar improvement in vision at six and 24 months. At six months, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved from baseline 3.16 lines in the occlusion and 2.84 lines in the atropine group (mean difference 0.034 logMAR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.005 to 0.064 logMAR). At 24 months, additional improvement was seen in both groups; but there continued to be no meaningful difference (mean difference 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04 logMAR). The second trial reported atropine to be more effective than occlusion. At six months, visual acuity improved 1.8 lines in the patching group and 3.4 lines in the atropine penalization group, and was in favor of atropine (mean difference -0.16 logMAR; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR). Different occlusion modalities were used in these two trials. The third trial had inherent methodological flaws and limited inference could be drawn.No difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity and sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization was found. Although both treatments were well tolerated, compliance was better in atropine. Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion. The results indicate that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=75349086605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=75349086605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 19821369

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1361-6137

IS - 4

ER -