ArticleSaudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
Evaluation of optical coherence tomography findings according to treatment response in patients with amblyopia.
Article in Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether there is a difference in optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters between patients who respond to treatment for amblyopia, patients who do not respond to treatment, and children who do not have amblyopia.
methodsChildren were divided into three groups: those with full visual acuity after amblyopia treatment, Group 1; those without complete visual acuity, Group 2; and those without amblyopia, Group 3. Macular thickness (MT), retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), ganglion cell complex (GCC), and choroidal vascular index (CVI) parameters were measured by OCT and compared among the three groups.
resultsA total of 110 eyes of 55 patients with amblyopia and 37 eyes of 37 healthy children were included in the study. There was no difference between the three groups in the mean central MT, RNFL, GCC, and CVI. A difference in macular inner temporal value was detected between Group 1 and 2 amblyopic eyes and the control group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 3 groups in the RNFL Superior and RNFL SN. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in the 9-region MT or 12-region RNFL.
conclusionAlthough there was a difference in the macular inner temporal, RNFL SUP, and RNFL SN parameters when the control group and children who received amblyopia treatment were compared, there was no difference in OCT parameters in treatment responder and nonresponder children after amblyopia treatment. OCT parameters do not provide additional information about the response to treatment for amblyopia.
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.