ReviewBrain sciences2026
Amblyopia in 2026: A State-of-the-Art Review of Multidimensional Phenotyping, Response Heterogeneity, and Clinical Considerations.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amblyopia is increasingly conceptualized as a neurodevelopmental visual disorder that often arises from discordant binocular visual experience during early life and is associated with abnormal binocular interactions, interocular suppression, orientation-dependent developmental abnormalities in selected refractive phenotypes, and experience-dependent plasticity, consistent with a distributed-network perspective rather than a purely monocular acuity deficit. We performed a structured state-of-the-art narrative synthesis of peer-reviewed reviews, randomized controlled trials, and key mechanistic human studies indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus (1 January 2016-28 February 2026; last search 28 February 2026), prioritizing recent evidence from 2021-2026. Literature supports consideration of clinically trackable constructs beyond best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), including quantified suppression/imbalance, binocular function, and functionally meaningful outcomes such as reading-related limitation and broader functional impact. Across established and emerging intervention classes, treatment effects are heterogeneous across ages and etiologies. Evidence is strongest for conventional penalization and selected active training-based approaches, whereas newer protocol-standardized approaches remain investigational and require prospective evaluation with transparent exposure/dose reporting. Based on these findings, we outline a clinically oriented, core outcome set for amblyopia and strabismus (COSAMS)-aligned framework that combines quantified binocular imbalance with multidimensional phenotyping and a hypothesis-driven, prospectively testable therapeutic model intended to structure (not replace) clinical decision-making. Priorities for precision-oriented amblyopia care include standardization of suppression metrics, adoption of core outcome sets, transparent reporting of 'not measurable' outcomes and missingness, and prospective validation of phenotype-driven, prediction-ready frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.