 |
 |

Contradictions in the Amblyopia Treatment Studies
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In the article entitled "Two-Year Follow-up of a 6-Month Randomized Trial of Atropine vs Patching for Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia in Children," the authors in the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group "could identify no sources of bias or confounding to explain our [their] findings."1 There are, nonetheless, substantive questions about the studys methodology.
Among these is that "the study protocol specified retesting of all sound eyes with vision worse than 20/20, whereas amblyopic eyes were not retested."1 According to Lancaster, "There is abundant evidence for the general proposition that exercises, repetition, practice, and learning lead to better performance."2 Different testing methods may have increased the disparity between the eyes.
The lack of untreated controls makes it impossible to distinguish the beneficial effects of training and increasing literacy from the presumed benefits of treatment. The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group authors "agree that inclusion of an untreated control group would have . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
Philip Lempert, MD
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Contradictions in the Amblyopia Treatment StudiesReply
Michael X. Repka, David K. Wallace, Roy W. Beck, Raymond T. Kraker, Eileen E. Birch, Susan A. Cotter, Sean Donahue, Donald F. Everett, Richard W. Hertle, Jonathan M. Holmes, Graham E. Quinn, Mitchell M. Scheiman, David R. Weakley, and for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(2):285-287.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Two-Year Follow-up of a 6-Month Randomized Trial of Atropine vs Patching for Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia in Children
The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(2):149-157.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|