Question · asked by 1 review

Binocular iPad treatment vs occlusion therapy: Visual acuity

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Binocular iPad treatment vs occlusion therapy
Change in BCVA amblyopic eye after 16 weeks logMAR (lower logMAR values indicate better visual acuity) · 5‐ to 8‐year‐old children with amblyopia
Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to… (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted1 study · 63 participantsModerate
Binocular iPad treatment vs occlusion therapy
Change in BCVA amblyopic eye after 8 weeks logMAR (lower logMAR values indicate better visual acuity) · 5‐ to 8‐year‐old children with amblyopia
Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to… (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted1 study · 62 participantsModerate

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years
2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot 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.