Saccadic eye movements in amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ayisha Atiya, Revathy Mani, Ann Webber et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined saccadic latency across amblyopia aetiologies and viewing conditions. Nine studies contributed data from 232 people with amblyopia and 140 controls. Latency was longer in amblyopia when viewing with the amblyopic eye (g = 1.17, I² = 43.69%, p < 0.0001) and binocularly (g = 0.70, I² = 25.87%, p < 0.0001), but not when viewing with the fellow eye. Delays varied by amblyopia type, with the largest effect in mixed amblyopia, and were associated with greater hyperopia.
Key findings
- Amblyopic-eye viewing showed longer saccadic latency than control viewing (g = 1.17, I² = 43.69%, p < 0.0001).
- Binocular viewing also showed longer latency (g = 0.70, I² = 25.87%, p < 0.0001); fellow-eye viewing did not (g = 0.12, p = 0.320).
- The largest effect was reported for mixed amblyopia in the amblyopic eye (g = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.70 to 1.87); effects differed by amblyopia type (p < 0.001).
- Amblyopic-eye latency was positively associated with hyperopic refractive error (p = 0.004).
Why it matters
Saccadic latency differs across viewing conditions and amblyopia types, suggesting that eye-movement measures may capture functional variation not reflected by a single overall measure. The reported associations with amblyopia type and hyperopia support further evaluation of latency as a potential aid to characterising amblyopia, while the meta-analysis does not establish its diagnostic performance in clinical use.
What to keep in mind
The meta-analysis included nine studies, and heterogeneity was present for some viewing-condition estimates. The abstract does not report diagnostic accuracy or evidence that latency-guided assessment improves outcomes.