Stewart Catherine E, Stephens David A, Fielder Alistair R, Moseley Merrick J
Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, London EC1V 0HB.
BMJ. 2007 Oct 6;335(7622):707. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39301.460150.55. Epub 2007 Sep 13.
To compare visual outcome in response to two prescribed rates of occlusion (six hours a day and 12 hours a day).
Unmasked randomised trial.
Research clinics in two London hospitals.
97 children with a confirmed diagnosis of amblyopia associated with strabismus, anisometropia, or both.
18 week period of wearing glasses (refractive adaptation) followed by occlusion prescribed ("patching") for six or 12 hours a day.
Visual acuity measured by logMAR letter recognition; objectively monitored rate of occlusion (hours a day).
The mean age of children at study entry was 5.6 (SD 1.5) years. Ninety were eligible for occlusion but 10 dropped out in this phase, leaving 80 children who were randomised to a prescribed dose rate of six (n=40) or 12 (n=40) hours a day. The mean change in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was not significantly different (P=0.64) between the two groups (0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.31) log units in six hour group; 0.24 (0.19 to 0.29) log units in 12 hour group). The mean dose rates (hours a day) actually received, however, were also not significantly different (4.2 (3.7 to 4.7) in six hour group v 6.2 (5.1 to 7.3) in 12 hour group; P=0.06). The visual outcome was similar for those children who received three to six hours a day or more than six to 12 hours a day, but significantly better than that in children who received less than three hours a day. Children aged under 4 required significantly less occlusion than older children. Visual outcome was not influenced by type of amblyopia.
Substantial (six hours a day) and maximal (12 hours a day) prescribed occlusion results in similar visual outcome. On average, the occlusion dose received in the maximal group was only 50% more than in the substantial group and in both groups was much less than that prescribed. Younger children required the least occlusion.
Clinical Trials NCT00274664.
比较针对两种规定的遮盖时长(每天6小时和每天12小时)的视力改善情况。
非盲法随机试验。
伦敦两家医院的研究诊所。
97名确诊患有与斜视、屈光参差或两者相关的弱视儿童。
佩戴眼镜18周(屈光适应期),随后每天遮盖(“眼罩遮盖”)6小时或12小时。
采用logMAR字母识别法测量视力;客观监测遮盖时长(每天小时数)。
研究开始时儿童平均年龄为5.6(标准差1.5)岁。90名儿童符合遮盖条件,但此阶段有10名退出,剩余80名儿童被随机分配至每天规定遮盖时长为6小时(n = 40)或12小时(n = 40)的组。两组弱视眼视力的平均变化无显著差异(P = 0.64)(6小时组为0.26(95%置信区间0.21至0.31)对数单位;12小时组为0.24(0.19至0.29)对数单位)。然而,实际接受的平均遮盖时长(每天小时数)也无显著差异(6小时组为4.2(3.7至4.7),12小时组为6.2(5.1至7.3);P = 0.06)。每天接受3至6小时或超过6至12小时遮盖的儿童视力改善情况相似,但显著优于每天接受少于3小时遮盖的儿童。4岁以下儿童所需的遮盖时长明显少于年龄较大的儿童。视力改善情况不受弱视类型影响。
规定的大量(每天6小时)和最大量(每天12小时)遮盖产生相似的视力改善效果。平均而言,最大量组接受的遮盖量仅比大量组多50%,且两组均远低于规定量。年龄较小的儿童所需遮盖量最少。
临床试验NCT00274664。