Question · asked by 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization: Stereo acuity (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 6 months, 2 years, or at cessation of treatment) and using different measures (TNO stereo test, Titmus fly test, Rando...

What each review found

Finding	Effect	Studies	GRADE certainty
Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization Stereo acuity (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 6 months, 2 years, or at cessation of treatment) and using different measures (TNO stereo test, Titmus fly test, Rando... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia;… Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only	no estimate extracted	5 studies · 865 participants	Moderate

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

Review	Searched up to	Included studies	AMSTAR 2
Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only	Not reported	list not extracted yet	Not assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.