Patching vs active observation: Stereoacuity at near
Patching showed no clear difference in stereoacuity at near Measured using the Preschool Randot, Titmus… compared with active observation (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Patching vs active observation Stereoacuity at near Measured using the Preschool Randot, Titmus fly, and Titmus circles tests at 40 cm at 6 months · people with intermittent exotropia, aged less than 11 years Patching showed no clear difference in stereoacuity at near Measured using the Preschool Randot, Titmus… compared with active observation (low certainty). Interventions for intermittent exotropia (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 0 | 1 study · 324 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for intermittent exotropia 2021 · 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.