Vijay Tailor1, Manuela Bossi2, John A Greenwood3, Annegret Dahlmann-Noor4. 1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK. 2. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK. 3. Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK. 4. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK annegret.dahlmann-noor@moorfields.nhs.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND: With a prevalence of 2-5%, amblyopia is the most common vision deficit in children in the UK and the second most common cause of functional low vision in children in low-income countries. SOURCES OF DATA: Pubmed, Cochrane library and clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN, UKCRN portfolio database). AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Screening and treatment at the age of 4-5 years are cost efficient and clinically effective. Optical treatment (glasses) alone can improve visual acuity, with residual amblyopia treated by part-time occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. Treatment after the end of the conventional 'critical period' can improve vision, but in strabismic amblyopia carries a low risk of double vision. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: It is not clear whether earlier vision screening would be cost efficient and associated with better outcomes. Optimization of treatment by individualized patching regimes or early start of occlusion, and novel binocular treatment approaches may enhance adherence to treatment, provide better outcomes and shorten treatment duration. GROWING POINTS: Binocular treatments for amblyopia. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Impact of amblyopia on education and quality of life; optimal screening timing and tests; optimal administration of conventional treatments; development of child-friendly, effective and safe binocular treatments.
INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND: With a prevalence of 2-5%, amblyopia is the most common vision deficit in children in the UK and the second most common cause of functional low vision in children in low-income countries. SOURCES OF DATA: Pubmed, Cochrane library and clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN, UKCRN portfolio database). AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Screening and treatment at the age of 4-5 years are cost efficient and clinically effective. Optical treatment (glasses) alone can improve visual acuity, with residual amblyopia treated by part-time occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. Treatment after the end of the conventional 'critical period' can improve vision, but in strabismic amblyopia carries a low risk of double vision. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: It is not clear whether earlier vision screening would be cost efficient and associated with better outcomes. Optimization of treatment by individualized patching regimes or early start of occlusion, and novel binocular treatment approaches may enhance adherence to treatment, provide better outcomes and shorten treatment duration. GROWING POINTS: Binocular treatments for amblyopia. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Impact of amblyopia on education and quality of life; optimal screening timing and tests; optimal administration of conventional treatments; development of child-friendly, effective and safe binocular treatments.
Authors: Redmer van Leeuwen; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Johannes R Vingerling; Albert Hofman; Paulus T V M de Jong; Huib J Simonsz Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Christine Schmucker; Jos Kleijnen; Robert Grosselfinger; Rob Riemsma; Gerd Antes; Stefan Lange; Wolf Lagrèze Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Simone L Li; Alexandre Reynaud; Robert F Hess; Yi-Zhong Wang; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Christine Schmucker; Robert Grosselfinger; Rob Riemsma; Gerd Antes; Stefan Lange; Wolf Lagrèze; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Alexander J Foss; Richard M Gregson; Daisy MacKeith; Nicola Herbison; Isabel M Ash; Sue V Cobb; Richard M Eastgate; Trish Hepburn; Anthony Vivian; Diane Moore; Stephen M Haworth Journal: Trials Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Tina Y Gao; Cindy X Guo; Raiju J Babu; Joanna M Black; William R Bobier; Arijit Chakraborty; Shuan Dai; Robert F Hess; Michelle Jenkins; Yannan Jiang; Lisa S Kearns; Lionel Kowal; Carly S Y Lam; Peter C K Pang; Varsha Parag; Roberto Pieri; Rajkumar Nallour Raveendren; Jayshree South; Sandra Elfride Staffieri; Angela Wadham; Natalie Walker; Benjamin Thompson Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389