Optom Vis Sci. 2021 Mar 1;98(3):222-233. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001659.
The results of this study suggest that clinicians providing vergence/accommodative therapy for convergence insufficiency in children should not suggest that such treatment will lead to improvements in attention when compared with placebo treatment.
This study aimed to compare the effects of 16 weeks of vergence/accommodative therapy and placebo therapy on changes in attention for children in the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial-Attention and Reading Trial.
Three hundred ten children 9 to 14 years old with convergence insufficiency were assigned to receive treatment with office-based vergence/accommodative therapy or placebo therapy. Attention tests were administered at baseline and after 16 weeks of treatment. The primary measure of attention was the Strengths and Weaknesses of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms and Normal Behavior (SWAN) scale. Other measures included the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham checklist; the Homework Problems Checklist; and the d2 Test of Attention. Within and between-group differences are reported using Cohen d effect sizes.
For the SWAN, there was no significant difference between the groups for the inattention scale parental report (d = 0.036; 95% confidence interval, -0.21 to 0.28) or for the hyperactivity impulsivity scale parental report (d = -0.003; 95% confidence interval, -0.24 to 0.24). Similar results were found for teacher reports and the secondary measures (d estimates from -0.97 to +0.10). There were, however, large within-group changes with d ≥ 1 in both treatment groups for the SWAN, the Homework Problems Checklist, and the d2 Test of Attention.
These results suggest that vergence/accommodative therapy is no better than placebo therapy in improving attention. Large improvements in inattention, completing homework, and selective and sustained attention were found in each group. However, these improvements cannot be attributed to improvements in vergence and accommodation and are likely due to nonspecific effects of an intensive therapy regimen.
这项研究的结果表明,为儿童集合不足提供聚散调节治疗的临床医生不应暗示这种治疗会比安慰剂治疗在注意力方面有改善。
本研究旨在比较 16 周的聚散调节治疗和安慰剂治疗对集合不足治疗试验-注意力和阅读试验中儿童注意力变化的影响。
310 名 9 至 14 岁患有集合不足的儿童被分配接受基于办公室的聚散调节治疗或安慰剂治疗。在基线和 16 周治疗后进行注意力测试。注意力的主要衡量标准是注意力缺陷多动障碍症状和正常行为(SWAN)量表的强项和弱点。其他措施包括斯旺森、诺兰和佩尔姆检查表、家庭作业问题检查表和 d2 注意力测试。报告了组内和组间差异,使用 Cohen d 效应大小表示。
对于 SWAN,在父母报告的注意力不集中量表(d = 0.036;95%置信区间,-0.21 至 0.28)或父母报告的多动冲动量表(d = -0.003;95%置信区间,-0.24 至 0.24)方面,两组之间没有显著差异。教师报告和次要措施的结果相似(d 估计值为-0.97 至+0.10)。然而,在 SWAN、家庭作业问题检查表和 d2 注意力测试中,两组都有较大的组内变化,d 值≥1。
这些结果表明,聚散调节治疗并不比安慰剂治疗更能改善注意力。在每个组中都发现注意力不集中、完成家庭作业以及选择性和持续性注意力有较大的改善。然而,这些改善不能归因于聚散和调节的改善,可能是由于强化治疗方案的非特异性影响。