RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A comparison of therapies using Eyetronix Flicker Glass And standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia: A randomized controlled trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.20.20157552
DO 10.1101/2020.07.20.20157552
A1 Min, Seung Hyun
A1 Chen, Shijia
A1 Xu, Jinling
A1 Chen, Bingzhen
A1 Chen, Hui
A1 Wang, Yuwen
A1 Zhou, Jiawei
A1 Yu, Xudong
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/26/2020.07.20.20157552.abstract
AB Objective Eyetronix Flicker Glass (EFG) has been introduced an alternative treatment for amblyopia. It is based on the premise that amblyopia can better be treated by manipulating the visual input that enter both the normal and amblyopic eye. In contrast, only the normal eye gets deprived during the traditional patching therapy. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of the therapies using the Eyetronix Flicker Glass and standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia.Design A prospective, randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 children aged 4-13 years with anisometropic amblyopia Intervention: The patients were assigned two treatment groups and were treated for 12 weeks. Those in the first group were treated with the Eyetronix Flicker Glass for one hour per day, whereas those in the latter group were treated with the standard patches for two hours per day.Main outcome measures Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye, stereopsis and fusion range were measured at both before the treatment and 3, 6 and 12 weeks after the first day of the treatment.Results Visual acuity of the amblyopic eye significantly improved in both groups after the treatment (p < 0.05), albeit more so in patients who had undergone the standard patching therapy. A significant improvement in contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye at 3, 6 and 12 cpd was also observed in patients who had undergone the standard patching therapy (p < 0.05) but not the EFG therapy (p > 0.05). However, no improvement in stereopsis and fusion range was found in patients from both treatment groups.Conclusion Both therapies improved monocular visual functions, such as visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. However, the improvement was significantly larger after the standard patching therapy than that of the EFG therapy. However, both therapies did not improve fusion range and stereopsis. Our results indicate that although the EFG therapy deprives visual input in a binocular fashion, it does not improve binocular functions in the amblyopic population.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialChiCTR2000034436Funding StatementThis research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31970975 and 81500754) and the Wenzhou Medical University grant (QTJ16005) to JWZ and Canadian institute of Health Research graduate award to SHM.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The research protocol and the informed consent forms were reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Affiliated Eye hospital at Wenzhou Medical University (2016-18-Q-11).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.