The Psychological Impact of Amblyopia Treatment: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this literature review was to determine if a consensus could be reached on whether amblyopia treatment causes distress to patients and/or their guardians, and if so, establish the impact of this reported psychological distress upon paediatric patients and/or their parents/guardians. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted of all publications written in English. Search terms included both MeSH terms and alternatives related to amblyopia and psychological distress. Evidence quality was assessed using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Score (NOS) and evaluation of the literature was used to form a narrative synthesis of the findings. Results: Initial searches yielded 7,838 titles in total, with 25 peer reviewed papers published between 1999 and 2021 meeting the study inclusion criteria. Factors such as the presence of strabismus, moderate and severe amblyopic density, occlusive patch treatment and patching during school age increase the likelihood of experiencing distress as a result of amblyopia treatment. Conclusions: Both parents/guardians and patients can experience psychological distress as a result of undertaking amblyopia treatment. School-aged children and those receiving occlusion therapy in the form of patching report higher distress than infants and young-children, and those receiving atropine occlusion therapy or refractive correction only. Further study measuring the physiological markers of distress such as Cortisol and BDNF, is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".