Talk:Amblyopia

Prevalence for amblyopia

It seems like a tough question whenever one wants to answer precisely (is it more 1% or more 5%) because it depends on the country, the age, and mostly the criterion chosen (one line, two line difference? including all amblyogenic causes or not?). However, when one is claiming that it is between 1 and 5%, ALL studies agree (in western countries). So I don't think so we can go wrong on this one. They agree no matter what is the age or the criterion, but the range can go to 10% when including non-western countries.

Secondary sources:

• GHS study (we cite)- review different age, countries, criteron, ranging from 1 to 10% - 10% being in non-western countries). The study itself finds 5.6% in Germany (adults 35-44).
• Birch's review (2013): review studies ranging from 1 to 3.6%, all in children, average 2.4%
• Flom and Neumaier (1966): review studies ranging from 0.6 to 4% (excluding clinical samples), various population, age, but all in western countries.

--Adrien Chopin (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Amblyopia equals AIDS???

It was quite ironic that Amblyopia is one of the very few diseases that is not tamed enough by the human intelligence. It almost goes unnoticed at the very age of the victim, when it can be best controlled. It is good that children are lucky enough to have wonderful treatment regimens available to them these days, if only, when detected in time, that is in their very early years, but the stigma and pain that is associated with Adult Amblyopia is particularly unbearable. I came to know that I am one of the very few people who fell to this seemingly innocuous disease(rather poor vision condition - doctors won't give up to call it a disease) when I was first disqualified in 'Army Selections'. That was a blow to my career as I always dreamt of becoming an 'Officer in Uniform' right from my childhood. Then started my ordeal, it forced me to change my goals, take up unplanned ventures, constantly irritated me now and then, and more than anything else, I am very much depressed to imagine the fact that one day I will become a one-eyed jack.

While it is extremely painful to learn that there is no proven treatment for the adults, the plight of the people like me in the still developing countries is un-imaginable, where nothing is being done effectively, even the diagnosis of this bloody disease( let me vent my anger).

My Dear Brothers Of The World Who Are In The Same Boat With Me: We share the slogan with the victims of the most dreaded disease(or ???condition) on this earth AIDS:

DOCTORS OF THE WORLD: DO SOMETHING AND SAVE US before it is too late.

This seems rather over-wrought. I have had amplylpia since early childhood, did the patch thing without any results, and have lived with it since age 5, now I am 60. Other than in a few situation involving hand-eye coordination, it has never been a bother. Unfortunately (IMO), it did not keep me out of the Army, infantry, or Viet Nam. Wschart 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Wschart. I do not have amblyopia, but i work in a lab researching it. The amblyopes who come into the lab seem to be irritated by their poor vision, but comparing it to AIDS is just ridiculous and frankly offensive. That blog has nothing on it anyway, so I removed the link... Famousdog 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The similaity to AIDS is surely its preventability. You removed what link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Same as Wschart, I have had it since early childhood. Did the patch thing as a child, tried a contact lens for a while (no noticeable difference, and while there were very slight improvements I did not feel it was worth it). Whenever it comes up I talk about how it seems like I can see through sides of objects. I do sympathize with people pursuing professions in which eyesight matters, good luck with your new plans and don't let external circumstances drag you down. Pomte 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

fellow amblyopia sufferer, since childhood, now 20. It has never been particularly impactful, I forget I even have it most days. Maybe it influenced my dislike for sports, but even that is dubious. I went into academia anyway so I don't need much depth perception. Comparing it to AIDS feels silly at best and bigoted at worst. 155.31.55.254 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Amblyopia and Ocular Dominance

Does Amblyopia have anything to do with Ocular Dominance?
Ocular Dominance Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance

Amblyopia has a lot to do with ocular dominance, though not necessarily in a clear-cut way. Monocular occlusion during development is a well-known way to cause amblyopia, and causes the ocular dominance columns of cortex for the dominant eye of the amblyope to dominate that of the amblyopic eye. Behaviorally, amblyopia - which has a poor medical definition - exhibits symptoms that suggest information loss in transmission from eye to cortex because of poor development. That information loss could be caused by the mechanics of the screwed up distribution of ocular dominance cells, which extends in a loop from the eye through the lateral geniculate nucleus, and into the cortex, as well as into the pons which controls certain automatic tracking activities.<spetz>.216.175.188.98 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The medical textbook definitions of amblyopia might be poor (agreed) but from research in the last twenty years (e.g. R. Sireteanu) we have a reasonably good understanding of the phenomenon. Yes, as a yardstick, it has to do with the ocular dominance cells, but to clarify the above they are located in the primary visual cortex (first characterized by Hubel & Wiesel), not in the lateral geniculate nucleus (but perhaps I misunderstand the above sentence). Strasburger (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but amblyopia and ocular dominance appear to be two POV and therefore unscientific ways of designating the same phenomenon(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Amblyopia and ocular dominance are different scientific concepts and refer to different phenomena. They are not independent of each other (e.g. amblyopia in one eye might be the reason for the dominance of the other), but so are many things. Strasburger (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

removed "this remains controversial."

The controversial aspect is covered by the bates method article. It now looks as if the claim of some is controversial.Seeyou 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Bates Method

About the deletion lazy eye or tense eye. WIkipedia also has the policy of a neutral point of view. That means when there are substantial bodies of opposing opinions, they all need to be presented. The formula is "A says B about C." You can't say in the article "mainstream medicine is bunk." You can't say in a vague sort of way "Bates supporters think mainstream medicine is bunk." You can say "so-and-so, in his book Thus-and-such, says on page 234, 'mainstream medicine is bunk.'".Seeyou 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Look your vague references to eyes being 'tense' as opposed to 'lazy' or 'poor' suggest that you don't know what amblyopia is, so I'm removing this stuff as its just an attempt to promote the Bates method, not an attempt at 'neutrality'. When they use the term 'lazy eye', ophthalmologists don't mean the eye is actually 'lazy'. Or, indeed, that it is 'tense' and equally meaningless comment. Famousdog 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply 1 :

> Look your vague references to eyes being 'tense' as opposed to 'lazy' or 'poor' suggest that you don't know what amblyopia is. Why is the reference vague, please explain. suggest that you don't know what amblyopia is ? That is your opinion !

> I'm removing this stuff as its just an attempt to promote the Bates method, not an attempt at 'neutrality' It is an attempt to give valueble information about amblyopia.. I am quite sure a lot of people will find this information very interesting not an attempt at 'neutrality' Again that is your opinion Objective people will say you are not neutral by removing this information.

> When they use the term 'lazy eye', ophthalmologists don't mean the eye is actually 'lazy'. Or, indeed, that it is 'tense' and equally meaningless comment. don't mean the eye is actually 'lazy'. I do understand why ophthalmologists call amblyopia lazy eye. It looks like a ambliopic eye is lazy from the ophthalmologists point of view. But when you really understand and know the cause, a far better name is tense eye. Now ophthalmologists give on a subjecitve level false information that the eye is not working hard enough. And make it very hard for the public to find the real reason and solutions. In other words This is very valueable information with a reference everybody can check, When you think the ophthalmologists are right and the natural vision improvement movement is wrong about the cause (?) you are not neutral. Do ophthalmologists say something about the cause of amblyopia by the way ? Or are they vague ? Seeyou 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Because you haven't defined what 'lazy', 'poor' and 'tense' mean and what they refer to. 2) This information is "valuable" only to people selling useless products supposed to help that only have anecdotal evidence to support their use, not valuable to people with amblyopia. 3) "Tense" is not a better word that "lazy", because neither of them are helpful or descriptive. Ophthalmologist have found out lots of things about the causes, development and nature of Amblyopia and what they have found out certainly isn't "vague". Mainstream ophthalmology and neuroscience (my own particulart interest in this topic) haven't found a cure (yet!), but I believe they one day will. The "natural vision movement" hasn't found a cure either but gives false hope to people by selling its books and tapes on purely anecdotal support rather than proper science. Famousdog 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply 2 :

1. Again, why is the reference vague ? Please explain.with arguments ?

2. Fact : Objective people will say you are not neutral by removing this information. True or untrue ?

The name lazy eye makes it very hard for the public to find the real reason and solutions. In other words This is very valueable information with a reference to a book everybody can check when they are interested, When you think the ophthalmologists are right and the natural vision improvement movement is wrong about the cause (?) you are not neutral. We should be very happy wikipedia can allow this information to reach the public.

Q : 1) Because you haven't defined what 'lazy', 'poor' and 'tense' mean and what they refer to. I have not defined anything ! A : I have given a citation from a book with a opposite point of view. ( A lazy eye needs to work harder, a tense eye needs relaxation. )

This information is "valuable" only to people selling useless products supposed to help that only have anecdotal evidence to support their use, not valuable to people with amblyopia. A : That is your opinion. There also people selling glasses and making a lots of money. This is no argument.

"Tense" is not a better word that "lazy", because neither of them are helpful or descriptive. A : Tense is far better than lazt because is gives information about the cause and the solution. Lazy describes only the symptom

Mainstream ophthalmology and neuroscience (my own particulart interest in this topic) haven't found a cure (yet!), but I believe they one day will. A : I don’t think they will find a cure. They have got the wrong starting point, but you never know they might read this.!

The "natural vision movement" hasn't found a cure either but gives false hope to people by selling its books and tapes on purely anecdotal support rather than proper science. A : That is your opinion. My opinion is the opposite.

I don’t think we will ever come to an agreement. Let’s ask others what they think about the referenced information lazy eye or tense eye :

When people are told they have a bad, poor or lazy eye, the assumption is made that the problem is occuring because the eyes are not working hard enough. In truth the opposite is the case – there is to much tension in the visual system. Bates said many types of amblyopia are caused by strain .

(sigh...) Aguing over whether "tense" is a better word than "lazy" doesn't help anybody. Recommending "relaxation" or "swinging of the eyball" is useless. Amblyopia (in laymans' terms as much as possible) is caused by blurred images on the retina during the development of the visual areas of the brain. This can be as a result of strabismus (squint), anisometropia or deprivation of visual input in one eye. The half of the visual system that deals with input from the effected eye develops abnormally, with poorer contrast sensitivity and insensitivity to high spatial and temporal frequencies - probably a direct result of the blurred image during development. There is evidence of "higher-level" deficits such as global motion perception and undercounting of visual features. Whether these high-level deficits are a downstream result of the initial contrast impairment or a result of separate deficits is currently under investigation by several labs, mine included. Thousands of researchers have contributed to this detailed picture of the impairments occuring in amblyopia. Citing Bates' pseudoscience does their work a huge disservice! In conclusion: The Bates Method is based on outdated, spurious research and the flakey opinions of just one man. It has only anecdotal evidence in its favour and I have already wasted far too much time discussing this. Famousdog 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The section in question [1] is original research and should be kept out of the article. There is also considerations about how much weight is placed on Bate's methods; it appears to me that a wikilink is enough, and a section of a paragraph would give it undue weight. It doesn't matter if Bate's method is true or not, Wikipedia is not the place to debate what is true and what is false, but to report the facts (as WP:Verifiability defines them) and POVs as POVs to the extent of the significance of those who take them (of course, you can add as much stuff about Bate's method in the article of that name, but not on this page). I suggest anyone wanting to add the section back to revise Wikipedia policies first. RB972 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

third party, Thank you. Now I understand. From the point of view of the public the source is not reliable. Still I hope the public will rebel and check the source with an open mind. Seeyou. Seeyou 21:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lazy eye"

Amblyopia is not "lazy eye". Strabismus is. I have strabismic amblyopia. That is, as a child my strabismus (now cured) led to amblyopia (not cured). I have not had "lazy eye" since my childhood even though I still suffer from amblyopia. I thus suggest that the appositive , or "lazy eye", be removed from the article's first sentence. --198.203.175.175 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. Although hardly used by clinicians, the term "lazy eye" refers to amblyopia, which may be caused by strabismus. It is a common misconception that "lazy" = wandering = strabismus, but "lazy" in fact refers to "weaker" or "suppressed". The fact that the two often occur together propogates this confusion. Famousdog 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? My child's ophthalmologist explained that lazy eye means strabismus and not general amblyopia. I'm not saying they couldn't be wrong, but it's surprising. 46.127.26.183 (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that educational clarification. Do you think that this warrants a clarification either here or at Strabismus? They both essentially start out "X is lazy eye.", where X is the article title. --198.203.175.175 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do they? I'll check that out. In the meantime here's a FAQ page to clarify further [2] Famousdog 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed strabismus and lazy eye accordingly. Famousdog 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be an idea to remove the "lazy eye" quote but in the 50's, that is what is was called. I was diagnosed too late for the patch to work because I was "too aware of my looks" and kept taking the patch off till everyone gave up. I still remember to this day when the Doctor told me that I had "Lazy Eye." I would hate for this page to be missed by those searching for "Lazy Eye" even if that is not the correct definition. Larewill50 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many dead links

Hi there,

Just read the article on amblyopia. It raises as many questions as it answers, mainly because so many difficult terms are used but not explained, at least no by wikipedia. These terms seem to be linked to non existing articles :(

Sitz

Umm. Sorry, but I only found two redlinks, which I have now corrected. Many of the technical terms link to other wikipages. Exactly which section are you having trouble with? Famousdog 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Depth perception

I don't know where to put this comment, but I have amblyopia and I have depth perception AND I am able to see autostereogams with no difficulty. I was diagnosed at age 7 and I had my first exposure to an autostereogram at age 8. It took a little while for me to understand how to see them, but after a friend helped me, I have been able to see them with no problem. I'm almost 24 now. I wonder how many amblyopes can actually see autostereograms and stereograms. Perhaps mine is not that servere of a case (although I do have 4 diopters [sp?] of astigmatisim in my amblyopic eye). Jcsavestheday (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)jcsavestheday

 - this is a clear demonstration that amblyopia and strabismus are two totally different conditions.  Related yes, but quite different.  (Doc Adam (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC))

People who have never had binocular vision don't understand what it would be like to have it -- and vice versa. This article seems to be full of the normal view of people who do not have amblyopia, who are sure it must be a terrible curse to have it. But, actually, people with amblyopia can have depth perception. It would be interesting to find an accurate description of what difference binocular vision actually makes -- but it would probably have to be written by researchers who don't have binocular vision... -69.87.203.221 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article "Stereo Sue" from the New Yorker magazine. Its written by a woman who had no depth perception (stereopsis) for 50 years then suddenly regained it. Famousdog (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely!!!!

I'm Amblyopic too, and have no problem with depth perception. It's actually because the brain learns to interpolate from 2d to 3d and doesn't need the other eye. When I did geology at college I had to interpolate 2d maps in 3d and was absolutely the 'ace' of the class - but I couldn't explain what I could 'see' in my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.117.230 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Depth perception is often confused with stereo vision. What's missing in amblyopia – if it is missing – is stereo vision, not depth perception. Strasburger (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I have amblyopia, discovered when I was around 6, too late for correction. (I'm 52 now.) I occasionally have trouble with depth perception, pouring water outside of a glass, for example. I saw a neuro-opthalmologist some years age because I have another neurological problem, and he explained that while I don't have actual depth perception, there is an adaptation that, in most cases, gets around it. The brain does not "interpolate," because the brain doesn't know what 3D looks like. Kirkmc (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as long as we're being anecdotal, I have strabismus, and therefore no depth perception. But every once in a while, under ideal conditions, the 3D effect kicks in. So the perceptual brain circuits must still be there, just the visual processing failed to develop. I would think there's room there for more research - and conceivably another Nobel! (Doc Adam (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC))

Lazy eye?

Is there a reason why Lazy eye isn't redirected here? It would appear that this should be so from reading the other article. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its better if Lazy eye remains a disambiguation page, since there is confusion over the term and people looking for info on stabismus might get redirected to amblyopia when it isn't relevant to them. Famousdog 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Prozac

Let me explain why I wholesale removed the section on prozac as a potential "cure"...

This is one study. And its in mice not humans. And it involves a drug. And this drug has recently been shown to not really have any great antidepressant effects. That means that producers of prozac could potentially be losing their "depressed kids" market and may be scouting about for some other group to sell it to.

Finally, and most importantly, I would feel pretty bad if, based on this flimsy evidence, amblyopic kids started taking Mum's prozac because they didn't like wearing a patch for two hours a day. I suggest we let scientists do their job and test this hypothesis before proclaiming it as a new "cure". The jury is very much still out on this one. One swallow does not a summer make... Famousdog (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one study. And its in mice not humans. And it involves a drug. And this drug has recently been shown to not really have any great antidepressant effects. That means that producers of prozac could potentially be losing their "depressed kids" market and may be scouting about for some other group to sell it to.

Obviously you have some baggage regarding fluoxetine. The drug is favorable for as a first line anti-depressant the problem is patients poor combliance to the drug since it takes 4-6 weeks for onset of effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.6.203 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Where to turn for help?

I looked for help or a cure but there is none. Lasik surgery wants nothing to do with me. 3 eye doctors tell me oh im fine. I'm here as an Amblyopic representitive to ask where then is the knowledge to repair this problem ! I am now 33 and have 20% vision in my right eye. I am especially angry that this disease is called " LAZY EYE" People say "well i never knew your eye was crooked" and I have to educate them on a subject that has no information,charts,graphs,websites,links,photosw,groups or any info at all. .....ect, No one seems to know or care about this and it affects my life every day in all that I do. I don't know about you all but I need to see! Please help research this disease and find a cure for it and recognition as an extremely depressing disease and immensely underated, understudied seriously oppressing handicap. aka blindness. If anyone knows any info that would be great. I should be eligible for ssd? Anyone know? Thank You...Cosmos0001 (talk)Blindness I can be part of any study anyone is trying on this disease. I want to see!

04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, firstly, calm down. You're right, there currently is no cure (if you are older than mid-teens) although there are some promising avenues of research. Lasik won't help because the problem is not in the refractive properties of the eye, but in the brain (it should be called "lazy brain" ;-) ). But you're totally wrong about it being "immensely underrated (and) understudied." I know of labs and researchers all over the world who take amblyopia very seriously and have made huge leaps in our understanding of what goes wrong in the brain to cause the condition. It helps to understand a condition before you can develop an effective cure, so this is all useful info. You also suggest research into it is underfunded, but that's not the case. Lots of money is thrown at this problem by research councils, but money may not be the issue - the intractability of the problem is. If you want to volunteer for research studies into potential treatments I can put you in touch with several labs. Send me a private message. And calm down. If you read the article rather than attacking it, the information is all there. Famousdog (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible NPOV Issue in "Treatment and prognosis"

Looking at the treatment and prognosis section where it talks about the Enfant system, the tone does not seem to me to be encyclopedic - the section only discusses the drawbacks of the conventional detection method, and the pros of the Enfant system, using terms like "breakthrough technology" and a list of features of the system which does not seem to be appropriate for an article about one of the conditions that the system detects. While it may merit a mention on the page as a detection method, with some reasoning provided, I think this might warrant a rewrite (by someone more knowledgeable on the topic than myself, probably). Interestingly average (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Its been removed now. There's nothing particularly breakthrough about VEPs. Researchers have been using them for years and know that you can map out contrast sensitivity in children using them. The technology is not patented as far as I know, so the Enfant system is simply one among many alternative systems. Famousdog (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it start before birth?

The lazy eye is an effect from the frontal lobe, correct? What about the limbic system? The frontal lobe is the first stage of birth. All psychology, Autism/Aspergers comes from the frontal lobe, if limbic system. It is known that epilepsy, diabetes (psychologically if genetic) can assist/partner the lazy eye? Thank you for your time, God bless you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musketeer41 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Amblyopia (loosely referred to as "lazy eye") is a developmental problem of the occipital lobe, not the frontal lobe. The visual areas in the occipital lobe need visual input for their development, i.e. the baby needs to see. So it starts after birth, not before birth. Strasburger (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed references

I just removed 2 references from the page:

Destructoid: Mario Kart Saved Child's Eyesight [3]

Neither meets the requirements of WP:RS, as gamepolitics is a blog and the other boasts of having "unfiltered and unedited" commentary. Both seem to be referring to legitimate medical studies, which would be reliable. So if we can find those, then we can go ahead and keep the info. I left the info in the page for now with cite needed tags, as it seems likely that the info can be added. I can't search PubMed or the equivalent, but if I have time and inclination later I'll try Google Scholar. Anyone else, of course, is welcome to do the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

This could be a useful ref.

• Hess R.F., Thompson B., Baker D.H.: Binocular vision in amblyopia: structure, suppression and plasticity, Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. March 2014, Vol. 34, Nr. 2, pp. 146-162, doi:10.1111/opo.12123.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition to research subheading

I added a short paragraph concerning amblyopia and neuroplasticity to update the public on current molecular biology research that is of interest to amblyopia. All sources are recently published and are from reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals (please see citations). Links are included if a reader would like to know more about the proteins currently being researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmb8539 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

please read WP:MEDRS. refs should be secondary, not primary. And what we do here, is read the secondary literature, and present to readers what is most important - what gets WP:WEIGHT is what reviews tell us is most important. it appears that you maybe work on those proteins, or stumbled across recent papers on them. the information is random. that is why it is bad to use primary sources. there are zillions of them and it is WP:OR to pick this primary source or that one to add content based on. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Correcting the introduction: the optic nerves are innocent

It is written that: "In amblyopia visual stimulation either fails to be or is poorly transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain for a continuous period of time" This can be understood as if the cause of amblyopia was in a problem of optic nerve. This is obviously false. There is no research backing up this claim, while there are thousands of papers showing this has a cortical cause (and the debate is rather about the pure implication of V1 or of other areas, like extra-striate visual areas or LGN: see Levi (2013) for a review). This is important to correct that, given I have seen the error spreading in non-academic websites or translation of the wikipedia webpage in other languages. This is going to far and it is time to stop the bleeding. I think the original intent of the sentence is to explain that whenever the brain does not receive visual stimulation for a continuous period of time, there is a risk for amblyopia. I am open to discussion, but there is a consensus in academia on that so there should be none. --Adrien16 (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amblyopia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050911041610/http://www.nei.nih.gov:80/health/amblyopia/index.asp to http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/amblyopia/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050911041610/http://www.nei.nih.gov:80/health/amblyopia/index.asp to http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/amblyopia/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oblique phrasing

Evidence regarding treatments for adults is poor.

This could have a direct meaning: we have scant evidence about efficacy in adults.

Or it could have a loosey-goosey meaning: Evidence attests that efficacy in adults is poor. (Careless speakers in oral context spin out this kind of sentence all the time.)

Whichever it is, this phrasing strikes me as is too oblique. — MaxEnt 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Changed the wording. Strasburger (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Neurology

With respect to speciality, would one send someone with amblyopia to a neurology or an ophthalmologist? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Neurologists will refer amblyopic patients to ophthalmology. In ophthalmology departments there are the relevant specialities of neuroophthalmology and strabology. But I expect every ophthalmologist would know what to do, once amblyopia is diagnosed. The difficulty is the diagnosis -- amblyopia often goes unnoticed until it is too late. Among my medical students, I often meet subjects who have amblyopia but don't know they do. One way to spot them is to ask who among them does not like 3D movies. Strasburger (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"See Also" section

I suggest adding a "See Also" section with links to related conditions such as diplopia, myopia and hyperopia. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.150.125.128 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)