MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534180736 · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1635-3

Binocular treatment of amblyopia using videogames (BRAVO): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2534180736 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cindy X. Guo, Raiju J. Babu, Joanna Black, William R. Bobier, Carly Siu Yin Lam, Shuan Dai, Tina Gao, Robert F. Hess, Michelle Jenkins, Yannan Jiang, Lionel Kowal, Varsha Parag, Jayshree South, Sandra E. Staffieri, Natalie Walker, Angela Wadham, Benjamin Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHealth and Medical Research FundState Government of VictoriaUniversity of WaterlooHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHealth Research Council of New ZealandMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineVisual acuityRandomized controlled trialBinocular visionPlaceboOptometryClinical trialOphthalmologySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Amblyopia is a common neurodevelopmental disorder of vision that is characterised by visual impairment in one eye and compromised binocular visual function. Existing evidence-based treatments for children include patching the nonamblyopic eye to encourage use of the amblyopic eye. Currently there are no widely accepted treatments available for adults with amblyopia. The aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy of a new binocular, videogame-based treatment for amblyopia in older children and adults. We hypothesise that binocular treatment will significantly improve amblyopic eye visual acuity relative to placebo treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The BRAVO study is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre trial to assess the effectiveness of a novel videogame-based binocular treatment for amblyopia. One hundred and eight participants aged 7 years or older with anisometropic and/or strabismic amblyopia (defined as ≥0.2 LogMAR interocular visual acuity difference, ≥0.3 LogMAR amblyopic eye visual acuity and no ocular disease) will be recruited via ophthalmologists, optometrists, clinical record searches and public advertisements at five sites in New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. Eligible participants will be randomised by computer in a 1:1 ratio, with stratification by age group: 7-12, 13-17 and 18 years and older. Participants will be randomised to receive 6 weeks of active or placebo home-based binocular treatment. Treatment will be in the form of a modified interactive falling-blocks game, implemented on a 5th generation iPod touch device viewed through red/green anaglyphic glasses. Participants and those assessing outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome is the change in best-corrected distance visual acuity in the amblyopic eye from baseline to 6 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include distance and near visual acuity, stereopsis, interocular suppression, angle of strabismus (where applicable) measured at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks post randomisation. Treatment compliance and acceptability will also be assessed along with quality of life for adult participants. DISCUSSION: The BRAVO study is the first randomised controlled trial of a home-based videogame treatment for older children and adults with amblyopia. The results will indicate whether a binocular approach to amblyopia treatment conducted at home is effective for patients aged 7 years or older. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12613001004752 ) on 10 September 2013.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.310
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207