PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: To evaluate factors associated with better outcomes from optical treatment alone in amblyopic children from 3 up to 7 years.
METHODS: Data extracted from two studies with similar protocols, Amblyopic Treatment Studies 5 (n = 152) and 13 (n = 128) from the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group database, were used to determine by regression analysis the factors associated with improvements in visual acuity in the amblyopic eye, inter-ocular visual acuity difference and stereoacuity. Input variables were aetiology of amblyopia (anisometropic, strabismic and combined-mechanism amblyopia), treatment compliance, visual acuity, interocular visual acuity difference, stereoacuity, tropia size at distance and near, age and refractive error at baseline.
RESULTS: Despite the range of clinical factors considered, our models explain only a modest proportion of the variance in optical treatment outcomes. The better predictors of the degree of optical treatment success in amblyopic children are visual acuity of the amblyopic eye, interocular visual acuity difference, stereoacuity, treatment compliance and the amblyopic eye spherical-equivalent refractive error. While the aetiology of the amblyopia does not exert a major influence upon treatment outcome, combined-mechanism amblyopes experience the smallest improvement in visual acuity, tropia and stereoacuity and may need longer optical treatment periods.
CONCLUSIONS: While results identify the factors influencing optical treatment outcome in amblyopic children, clinicians will be unable to predict accurately the benefits of optical treatment in individual patients. Whether this is because relevant clinical or non-clinical factors (e.g. nature and volume of daily activities undertaken) influences the outcomes from optical treatment has not yet been identified and remains to be discovered.
METHODS: Data extracted from two studies with similar protocols, Amblyopic Treatment Studies 5 (n = 152) and 13 (n = 128) from the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group database, were used to determine by regression analysis the factors associated with improvements in visual acuity in the amblyopic eye, inter-ocular visual acuity difference and stereoacuity. Input variables were aetiology of amblyopia (anisometropic, strabismic and combined-mechanism amblyopia), treatment compliance, visual acuity, interocular visual acuity difference, stereoacuity, tropia size at distance and near, age and refractive error at baseline.
RESULTS: Despite the range of clinical factors considered, our models explain only a modest proportion of the variance in optical treatment outcomes. The better predictors of the degree of optical treatment success in amblyopic children are visual acuity of the amblyopic eye, interocular visual acuity difference, stereoacuity, treatment compliance and the amblyopic eye spherical-equivalent refractive error. While the aetiology of the amblyopia does not exert a major influence upon treatment outcome, combined-mechanism amblyopes experience the smallest improvement in visual acuity, tropia and stereoacuity and may need longer optical treatment periods.
CONCLUSIONS: While results identify the factors influencing optical treatment outcome in amblyopic children, clinicians will be unable to predict accurately the benefits of optical treatment in individual patients. Whether this is because relevant clinical or non-clinical factors (e.g. nature and volume of daily activities undertaken) influences the outcomes from optical treatment has not yet been identified and remains to be discovered.
摘要：
背景：评估与3至7岁弱视儿童的光学治疗效果更好相关的因素。
方法：从具有相似方案的两项研究中提取的数据，弱视治疗研究5（n=152）和13（n=128）来自儿科眼病调查组数据库，通过回归分析确定与弱视眼视力改善相关的因素，眼间视力和立体视敏度的差异。输入变量是弱视的病因(屈光参差，斜视和联合机制弱视)，治疗依从性,视敏度,眼间视力差异，立体敏锐度,远处和近处的斜视大小，基线时的年龄和屈光不正。
结果：尽管考虑了一系列临床因素，我们的模型仅解释了光学治疗结局差异的适度比例.弱视儿童光学治疗成功程度的较好预测因素是弱视眼的视力，眼间视力差异，立体敏锐度,治疗依从性和弱视眼等效球面屈光不正。虽然弱视的病因不会对治疗结果产生重大影响，联合机制弱视经历最小的视力改善，斜视和立体敏锐度，可能需要更长的光学治疗时间。
结论：虽然结果确定了影响弱视儿童光学治疗结果的因素，临床医生将无法准确预测光学治疗对个体患者的益处。这是因为相关的临床或非临床因素（例如，日常活动的性质和数量）影响光学治疗的结果尚未确定，还有待发现。
方法：从具有相似方案的两项研究中提取的数据，弱视治疗研究5（n=152）和13（n=128）来自儿科眼病调查组数据库，通过回归分析确定与弱视眼视力改善相关的因素，眼间视力和立体视敏度的差异。输入变量是弱视的病因(屈光参差，斜视和联合机制弱视)，治疗依从性,视敏度,眼间视力差异，立体敏锐度,远处和近处的斜视大小，基线时的年龄和屈光不正。
结果：尽管考虑了一系列临床因素，我们的模型仅解释了光学治疗结局差异的适度比例.弱视儿童光学治疗成功程度的较好预测因素是弱视眼的视力，眼间视力差异，立体敏锐度,治疗依从性和弱视眼等效球面屈光不正。虽然弱视的病因不会对治疗结果产生重大影响，联合机制弱视经历最小的视力改善，斜视和立体敏锐度，可能需要更长的光学治疗时间。
结论：虽然结果确定了影响弱视儿童光学治疗结果的因素，临床医生将无法准确预测光学治疗对个体患者的益处。这是因为相关的临床或非临床因素（例如，日常活动的性质和数量）影响光学治疗的结果尚未确定，还有待发现。
