对3-6岁轻到中度的斜视性和/或轻到中度的屈光参差性弱视进行遮盖(由医生决定遮盖方法,初次最大每日6小时根据治疗反应逐渐减量)和阿托品压抑疗法(健眼每日1滴)对提高视力疗效的对比中,有高质量的证据表明,两者效果相近。遮盖可获得更快的初始反应,但是 6 个月后,两组的视力均改善约 3 行。弱视眼视力改善保持至 10 岁,此时两组间视力仍无差异。[35]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:268-278.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11879129?tool=bestpractice.com[41]Repka MX, Kraker RT, Beck RW, et al. A randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia: follow-up at age 10 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1039-1044.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695096?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
对3-6岁轻到中度的斜视性和/或轻到中度的屈光参差性弱视进行遮盖(由医生决定遮盖方法,初次最大每日6小时根据治疗反应逐渐减量)和阿托品压抑疗法(健眼每日1滴)对提高视力疗效的对比中,有高质量的证据表明,两者效果相近。遮盖可获得更快的初始反应,但是 6 个月后,两组的视力均改善约 3 行。弱视眼视力改善保持至 10 岁,此时两组间视力仍无差异。[35]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:268-278.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11879129?tool=bestpractice.com[41]Repka MX, Kraker RT, Beck RW, et al. A randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia: follow-up at age 10 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1039-1044.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695096?tool=bestpractice.com
接受弱视治疗的大龄儿童(7-17 岁)的视力改善情况:有高质量证据表明,弱视治疗在约一半 7-12 岁的患儿中有轻微的视力改善效果,而在大多数 13-17 岁患儿中则基本无效。且治疗结束1年后82%有效的7-12岁患儿治疗效果仍可保持。[58]Scheiman MM, Hertle RW, Beck RW, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:437-447.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15824215?tool=bestpractice.com[59]Hertle RW, Scheiman MM, Beck RW, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Stability of visual acuity improvement following discontinuation of amblyopia treatment in children aged 7 to 12 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:655-659.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614923/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502505?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
接受弱视治疗的大龄儿童(7-17 岁)的视力改善情况:有高质量证据表明,弱视治疗在约一半 7-12 岁的患儿中有轻微的视力改善效果,而在大多数 13-17 岁患儿中则基本无效。且治疗结束1年后82%有效的7-12岁患儿治疗效果仍可保持。[58]Scheiman MM, Hertle RW, Beck RW, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:437-447.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15824215?tool=bestpractice.com[59]Hertle RW, Scheiman MM, Beck RW, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Stability of visual acuity improvement following discontinuation of amblyopia treatment in children aged 7 to 12 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:655-659.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614923/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502505?tool=bestpractice.com
近距离视觉活动对弱视治疗结果的影响(视力提高效果):高质量证据表明,遮盖非弱视眼时进行的视觉任务的类型不影响弱视治疗效果。遮盖健眼后患眼近距离视物(画画,视频游戏)和远距离视物对于治疗效果没有差别。[53]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of near versus distance activities while patching for amblyopia in children aged 3 to less than 7 years. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2071-2078.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789533?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
近距离视觉活动对弱视治疗结果的影响(视力提高效果):高质量证据表明,遮盖非弱视眼时进行的视觉任务的类型不影响弱视治疗效果。遮盖健眼后患眼近距离视物(画画,视频游戏)和远距离视物对于治疗效果没有差别。[53]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of near versus distance activities while patching for amblyopia in children aged 3 to less than 7 years. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2071-2078.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789533?tool=bestpractice.com
屈光参差性弱视以单独戴镜作为初始治疗:中等质量证据表明单独戴镜对于3-<7岁弱视屈光参差性弱视患儿是最佳治疗方法。然而,中度至重度屈光参差性弱视儿童(基线视力较低或者屈光参差程度较高)有可能需要额外的后续治疗。[32]Chen PL, Chen JT, Tai MC, et al. Anisometropic amblyopia treated with spectacle correction alone: possible factors predicting success and time to start patching. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:54-60.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17113556?tool=bestpractice.com[33]Cotter SA, Edwards AR, Wallace DK, et al. Treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children with refractive correction. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:895-903.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16751032http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16751032?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
屈光参差性弱视以单独戴镜作为初始治疗:中等质量证据表明单独戴镜对于3-<7岁弱视屈光参差性弱视患儿是最佳治疗方法。然而,中度至重度屈光参差性弱视儿童(基线视力较低或者屈光参差程度较高)有可能需要额外的后续治疗。[32]Chen PL, Chen JT, Tai MC, et al. Anisometropic amblyopia treated with spectacle correction alone: possible factors predicting success and time to start patching. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:54-60.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17113556?tool=bestpractice.com[33]Cotter SA, Edwards AR, Wallace DK, et al. Treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children with refractive correction. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:895-903.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16751032http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16751032?tool=bestpractice.com
戴镜治疗 16 周后,无进行性改善且有残余弱视的儿童的视力改善情况:中等质量证据表明,每日对 3-7 岁轻到重度斜视性和/或屈光参差性弱视患儿戴镜加遮盖 2 小时可平均提高视力 1.1 行,相比于单独戴镜组提高 0.5 行。轻、中、重度弱视疗效提高结果相近。[37]Wallace DK, Edwards AR, Cotter SA, et al. A randomized trial to evaluate 2 hours of daily patching for strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:904-912.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16751033http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16751033?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
戴镜治疗 16 周后,无进行性改善且有残余弱视的儿童的视力改善情况:中等质量证据表明,每日对 3-7 岁轻到重度斜视性和/或屈光参差性弱视患儿戴镜加遮盖 2 小时可平均提高视力 1.1 行,相比于单独戴镜组提高 0.5 行。轻、中、重度弱视疗效提高结果相近。[37]Wallace DK, Edwards AR, Cotter SA, et al. A randomized trial to evaluate 2 hours of daily patching for strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:904-912.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16751033http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16751033?tool=bestpractice.com
中度弱视患儿每日遮盖 2 小时和每日遮盖 6 小时治疗的视力改善效果对比:中等质量证据表明,每日遮盖 6 小时与每日遮盖 2 小时对于治疗中度弱视的效果并无不同。[36]Repka MX, Beck RW, Holmes JM, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:603-611.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12742836?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
中度弱视患儿每日遮盖 2 小时和每日遮盖 6 小时治疗的视力改善效果对比:中等质量证据表明,每日遮盖 6 小时与每日遮盖 2 小时对于治疗中度弱视的效果并无不同。[36]Repka MX, Beck RW, Holmes JM, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:603-611.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12742836?tool=bestpractice.com
对于轻到中度斜视性弱视和/或屈光参差性弱视患儿进行平光镜加阿托品治疗与单独使用阿托品治疗的视力提高情况:中等质量证据表明,对 3-6 岁儿童周末使用阿托品加平光镜与周末单独使用阿托品相比,视力提高程度大致相同。但是相对于单独使用阿托品组,阿托品加平光镜组患儿视力达到20/25者的比例更高(40%)。[50]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Pharmacological plus optical penalization treatment for amblyopia: results of a randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:22-30.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139333?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
对于轻到中度斜视性弱视和/或屈光参差性弱视患儿进行平光镜加阿托品治疗与单独使用阿托品治疗的视力提高情况:中等质量证据表明,对 3-6 岁儿童周末使用阿托品加平光镜与周末单独使用阿托品相比,视力提高程度大致相同。但是相对于单独使用阿托品组,阿托品加平光镜组患儿视力达到20/25者的比例更高(40%)。[50]Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Pharmacological plus optical penalization treatment for amblyopia: results of a randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:22-30.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139333?tool=bestpractice.com
重度弱视每日遮盖 6 小时和全天遮盖治疗的视力改善效果对比:中等质量证据表明,全天遮盖治疗与每日遮盖 6 小时对于治疗重度弱视的视力提高效果并无不同。两组在治疗4个月后视力均提高了4.7-4.8行。[40]Holmes JM, Kraker RT, Beck RW, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2075-2087.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14597512?tool=bestpractice.com
系统评价或者受试者>200名的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。
重度弱视每日遮盖 6 小时和全天遮盖治疗的视力改善效果对比:中等质量证据表明,全天遮盖治疗与每日遮盖 6 小时对于治疗重度弱视的视力提高效果并无不同。两组在治疗4个月后视力均提高了4.7-4.8行。[40]Holmes JM, Kraker RT, Beck RW, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2075-2087.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14597512?tool=bestpractice.com