PURPOSE: To determine factors associated with pretreatment and posttreatment stereoacuity in subjects with moderate anisometropic amblyopia. METHODS: Data for subjects enrolled in seven studies conducted by the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group were pooled. The sample included 633 subjects aged 3 to <18 years with anisometropic amblyopia, no heterotropia observed by cover test, and baseline amblyopic eye acuity of 20/100 or better. A subset included 248 subjects who were treated with patching or Bangerter filters and had stereoacuity testing at both the baseline and outcome examinations. Multivariate regression models identified factors associated with baseline stereoacuity and with outcome stereoacuity as measured by the Randot Preschool Stereoacuity test. RESULTS: Better baseline stereoacuity was associated with better baseline amblyopic eye acuity (P < 0.001), less anisometropia (P = 0.03), and anisometropia due to astigmatism alone (P < 0.001). Better outcome stereoacuity was associated with better baseline stereoacuity (P < 0.001) and better amblyopic eye acuity at outcome (P < 0.001). Among 48 subjects whose amblyopic eye visual acuity at outcome was 20/25 or better and within one line of the fellow eye, stereoacuity was worse than that of children with normal vision of the same age. CONCLUSIONS: In children with anisometropic amblyopia of 20/40 to 20/100 inclusive, better posttreatment stereoacuity is associated with better baseline stereoacuity and better posttreatment amblyopic eye acuity. Even if their visual acuity deficit resolves, many children with anisometropic amblyopia have stereoacuity worse than that of nonamblyopic children of the same age.
PURPOSE: To determine factors associated with pretreatment and posttreatment stereoacuity in subjects with moderate anisometropic amblyopia. METHODS: Data for subjects enrolled in seven studies conducted by the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group were pooled. The sample included 633 subjects aged 3 to <18 years with anisometropic amblyopia, no heterotropia observed by cover test, and baseline amblyopic eye acuity of 20/100 or better. A subset included 248 subjects who were treated with patching or Bangerter filters and had stereoacuity testing at both the baseline and outcome examinations. Multivariate regression models identified factors associated with baseline stereoacuity and with outcome stereoacuity as measured by the Randot Preschool Stereoacuity test. RESULTS: Better baseline stereoacuity was associated with better baseline amblyopic eye acuity (P < 0.001), less anisometropia (P = 0.03), and anisometropia due to astigmatism alone (P < 0.001). Better outcome stereoacuity was associated with better baseline stereoacuity (P < 0.001) and better amblyopic eye acuity at outcome (P < 0.001). Among 48 subjects whose amblyopic eye visual acuity at outcome was 20/25 or better and within one line of the fellow eye, stereoacuity was worse than that of children with normal vision of the same age. CONCLUSIONS: In children with anisometropic amblyopia of 20/40 to 20/100 inclusive, better posttreatment stereoacuity is associated with better baseline stereoacuity and better posttreatment amblyopic eye acuity. Even if their visual acuity deficit resolves, many children with anisometropic amblyopia have stereoacuity worse than that of nonamblyopic children of the same age.
Authors: P S Moke; A H Turpin; R W Beck; J M Holmes; M X Repka; E E Birch; R W Hertle; R T Kraker; J M Miller; C A Johnson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Mitchell M Scheiman; Richard W Hertle; Roy W Beck; Allison R Edwards; Eileen Birch; Susan A Cotter; Earl R Crouch; Oscar A Cruz; Bradley V Davitt; Sean Donahue; Jonathan M Holmes; Don W Lyon; Michael X Repka; Nicholas A Sala; David I Silbert; Donny W Suh; Susanna M Tamkins Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-04
Authors: Michael X Repka; Susan A Cotter; Roy W Beck; Raymond T Kraker; Eileen E Birch; Donald F Everett; Richard W Hertle; Jonathan M Holmes; Graham E Quinn; Nicholas A Sala; Mitchell M Scheiman; David R Stager; David K Wallace Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Robert P Rutstein; Graham E Quinn; Elizabeth L Lazar; Roy W Beck; Dean J Bonsall; Susan A Cotter; Eric R Crouch; Jonathan M Holmes; Darren L Hoover; David A Leske; Ingryd J Lorenzana; Michael X Repka; Donny W Suh Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Roy W Beck; Pamela S Moke; Andrew H Turpin; Frederick L Ferris; John Paul SanGiovanni; Chris A Johnson; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Terry A Cox; R Clifford Blair; Raymond T Kraker Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Christina Gambacorta; Mor Nahum; Indu Vedamurthy; Jessica Bayliss; Josh Jordan; Daphne Bavelier; Dennis M Levi Journal: Vision Res Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Daniel P Spiegel; Jinrong Li; Robert F Hess; Winston D Byblow; Daming Deng; Minbin Yu; Benjamin Thompson Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Indu Vedamurthy; Mor Nahum; Samuel J Huang; Frank Zheng; Jessica Bayliss; Daphne Bavelier; Dennis M Levi Journal: Vision Res Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 1.886