other Versions

The effect of recent amblyopia research on current practice in the UK
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Is patching appropriate therapy?

    Newsham's recent article on the management of amblyopia is timely but misdirected. Illusions concerning occlusion therapy are repeated with tourettic persistence despite a lack of supporting objective scientific evidence. (Gregson R. Why are we so bad at treating amblyopia. Eye 2002;16:461-2)

    Reports of effective treatment are diminished by the number of subjects who decide to discontinue treatment. Of tho...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.