Question · asked by 1 review
Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization: Adherence
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization Adherence to treatment (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (6, 12, 0r 24 months), and with different measures (percentage of prescribed treatment that was completed at each study ... · 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 | 4 studies · 588 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.