↓ Skip to main content

Effect of a Binocular iPad Game vs Part-time Patching in Children Aged 5 to 12 Years With Amblyopia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
Title
Effect of a Binocular iPad Game vs Part-time Patching in Children Aged 5 to 12 Years With Amblyopia: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, December 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.4262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan M. Holmes, Vivian M. Manh, Elizabeth L. Lazar, Roy W. Beck, Eileen E. Birch, Raymond T. Kraker, Eric R. Crouch, S. Ayse Erzurum, Nausheen Khuddus, Allison I. Summers, David K. Wallace

Abstract

A binocular approach to treating anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia has recently been advocated. Initial studies have yielded promising results, suggesting that a larger randomized clinical trial is warranted. To compare visual acuity (VA) improvement in children with amblyopia treated with a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching. A multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in community and institutional practices from September 16, 2014, to August 28, 2015. Participants included 385 children aged 5 years to younger than 13 years with amblyopia (20/40 to 20/200, mean 20/63) resulting from strabismus, anisometropia, or both. Participants were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of a binocular iPad game prescribed for 1 hour a day (190 participants; binocular group) or patching of the fellow eye prescribed for 2 hours a day (195 participants; patching group). Study follow-up visits were scheduled at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed on participants who completed the 16-week trial. Binocular iPad game or patching of the fellow eye. Change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks. Of the 385 participants, 187 were female (48.6%); mean (SD) age was 8.5 (1.9) years. At 16 weeks, mean amblyopic-eye VA improved 1.05 lines (2-sided 95% CI, 0.85-1.24 lines) in the binocular group and 1.35 lines (2-sided 95% CI, 1.17-1.54 lines) in the patching group, with an adjusted treatment group difference of 0.31 lines favoring patching (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 0.53 lines). This upper limit exceeded the prespecified noninferiority limit of 0.5 lines. Only 39 of the 176 participants (22.2%) randomized to the binocular game and with log file data available performed more than 75% of the prescribed treatment (median, 46%; interquartile range, 20%-72%). In younger participants (aged 5 to <7 years) without prior amblyopia treatment, amblyopic-eye VA improved by a mean (SD) of 2.5 (1.5) lines in the binocular group and 2.8 (0.8) lines in the patching group. Adverse effects (including diplopia) were uncommon and of similar frequency between groups. In children aged 5 to younger than 13 years, amblyopic-eye VA improved with binocular game play and with patching, particularly in younger children (age 5 to <7 years) without prior amblyopia treatment. Although the primary noninferiority analysis was indeterminate, a post hoc analysis suggested that VA improvement with this particular binocular iPad treatment was not as good as with 2 hours of prescribed daily patching. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02200211.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 207 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Researcher 13 6%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 67 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Neuroscience 22 11%
Psychology 12 6%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 82 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2023.
All research outputs
#700,163
of 25,779,988 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#374
of 6,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,054
of 418,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#14
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,779,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.