Tailor Vijay, Bossi Manuela, Bunce Catey, Greenwood John A, Dahlmann-Noor Annegret
NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 162 City Road, London, UK, EC1V 2PD.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 11;2015(8):CD011347. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011347.pub2.
Current treatments for amblyopia in children, occlusion and pharmacological blurring, have had limited success, with less than two-thirds of children achieving good visual acuity of at least 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor compliance. A new treatment approach, based on the dichoptic presentation of movies or computer games (images presented separately to each eye), may yield better results, as it aims to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain. Compliance may also improve with these more child-friendly treatment procedures.
To determine whether binocular treatments in children aged three to eight years with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional occlusion or pharmacological blurring treatment.
We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (last date of searches: 14 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.
Two review authors independently screened the results of the search in order to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled participants between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia, defined as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, and BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. Prior to enrolment, participants were to have undergone a cycloplegic refraction and comprehensive ophthalmic examination including fundal examination. In addition, participants had to have completed a period of optical treatment, if indicated, and BCVA in the amblyopic eye had to remain unchanged on two consecutive assessments despite reportedly good compliance with glasses wearing. Participants were not to have received any treatment other than optical treatment prior to enrolment. We planned to include any type of binocular viewing intervention; these could be delivered on different devices including computer monitors viewed with LCD shutter glasses or hand-held screens including mobile phone screens with lenticular prism overlay. Control groups were to have received standard amblyopia treatment; this could include occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We planned to include full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) occlusion regimens.
We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We had planned to meta-analyse the primary outcome, that is mean distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye at 12 months after the cessation of treatment.
We could identify no RCTs in this subject area.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required to allow decisions about implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice. Currently there are no clinical trials offering standardised evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatments, but results from non-controlled cohort studies are encouraging. Future research should be conducted in the form of RCTs, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility. Other important outcome measures include outcomes reported by users, compliance with treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.
目前用于治疗儿童弱视的方法,如遮盖法和药物模糊法,效果有限,弱视眼视力至少达到0.20 logMAR的儿童不到三分之二,立体视改善有限,且依从性差。一种基于电影或电脑游戏的双眼视像呈现(图像分别呈现给每只眼睛)的新治疗方法可能会产生更好的效果,因为其目的是平衡每只眼睛向大脑输入的视觉信息。这些对儿童更友好的治疗程序也可能提高依从性。
确定3至8岁单侧弱视儿童采用双眼治疗是否比传统遮盖或药物模糊治疗能带来更好的视力结果。
我们检索了Cochrane眼科和视力组试验注册库(最后检索日期:2015年4月14日)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL;2015年第3期)、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid MEDLINE在研及其他非索引引文、Ovid MEDLINE每日更新、Ovid OLDMEDLINE(1946年1月至2015年4月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2015年4月)、ISRCTN注册库(www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch)、ClinicalTrials.gov(www.clinicaltrials.gov)以及世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(www.who.int/ictrp/search/en)。在电子检索试验时,我们未使用任何日期或语言限制。
两位综述作者独立筛选检索结果,以确定符合综述纳入标准的研究:随机对照试验(RCT),纳入年龄在3至8岁的单侧弱视参与者,弱视眼最佳矫正视力(BCVA)差于0.200 logMAR,对侧眼BCVA为0.200 logMAR或更好,且存在屈光参差、斜视或两者兼有的弱视危险因素。入选前,参与者需接受散瞳验光和包括眼底检查在内的全面眼科检查。此外,如果有指征,参与者必须完成一段光学治疗期,尽管据报道戴眼镜依从性良好,但弱视眼的BCVA在连续两次评估中必须保持不变。入选前,参与者除光学治疗外不得接受任何其他治疗。我们计划纳入任何类型的双眼视觉干预;这些干预可通过不同设备进行,包括使用液晶快门眼镜观看的电脑显示器或包括带有柱镜叠加的手机屏幕在内的手持屏幕。对照组应接受标准弱视治疗;这可能包括遮盖或药物模糊较好眼。我们计划纳入全职(所有清醒时间)和兼职(每天1至12小时)遮盖方案。
我们计划采用Cochrane协作网期望的标准方法程序。我们原计划对主要结局进行Meta分析,即治疗停止后12个月弱视眼的平均远距离BCVA。
我们在该主题领域未找到RCT。
需要进一步研究,以便在临床实践中就实施弱视双眼治疗做出决策。目前尚无临床试验提供双眼治疗安全性和有效性的标准化证据,但非对照队列研究的结果令人鼓舞。未来的研究应以RCT的形式进行,采用公认的视力和立体视评估方法,且已知其可重复性。其他重要的结局指标包括使用者报告的结局、治疗依从性以及治疗停止后弱视的复发情况。