↓ Skip to main content

Personalized versus standardized dosing strategies for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Personalized versus standardized dosing strategies for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0711-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Merrick J Moseley, Michael P Wallace, David A Stephens, Alistair R Fielder, Laura C Smith, Catherine E Stewart

Abstract

Amblyopia is the commonest visual disorder of childhood in Western societies, affecting, predominantly, spatial visual function. Treatment typically requires a period of refractive correction ('optical treatment') followed by occlusion: covering the nonamblyopic eye with a fabric patch for varying daily durations. Recent studies have provided insight into the optimal amount of patching ('dose'), leading to the adoption of standardized dosing strategies, which, though an advance on previous ad-hoc regimens, take little account of individual patient characteristics. This trial compares the effectiveness of a standardized dosing strategy (that is, a fixed daily occlusion dose based on disease severity) with a personalized dosing strategy (derived from known treatment dose-response functions), in which an initially prescribed occlusion dose is modulated, in a systematic manner, dependent on treatment compliance. A total of 120 children aged between 3 and 8 years of age diagnosed with amblyopia in association with either anisometropia or strabismus, or both, will be randomized to receive either a standardized or a personalized occlusion dose regimen. To avoid confounding by the known benefits of refractive correction, participants will not be randomized until they have completed an optical treatment phase. The primary study objective is to determine whether, at trial endpoint, participants receiving a personalized dosing strategy require fewer hours of occlusion than those in receipt of a standardized dosing strategy. Secondary objectives are to quantify the relationship between observed changes in visual acuity (logMAR, logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution) with age, amblyopia type, and severity of amblyopic visual acuity deficit. This is the first randomized controlled trial of occlusion therapy for amblyopia to compare a treatment arm representative of current best practice with an arm representative of an entirely novel treatment regimen based on statistical modelling of previous trial outcome data. Should the personalized dosing strategy demonstrate superiority over the standardized dosing strategy, then its adoption into routine practice could bring practical benefits in reducing the duration of treatment needed to achieve an optimal outcome. ISRCTN ISRCTN12292232 .

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 26%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#26
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,035
of 281,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#39
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 19 of them.
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 281,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.