New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Eyedrops Preferable to Patch in Treating Lazy Eye

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Treatment of amblyopia, or lazy eye, with painless eyedrops may be preferable to the conventional eyepatch approach, researchers say. The most common cause of visual impairment in children, amblyopia is estimated to affect up to 3 percent of kids in the U.S. Patching the unaffected eye forces the lazy eye to work harder at focusing. But children often resist the patch, which can irritate the skin and elicit teasing from their peers. The new findings, published in the March issue of the Archives of Ophthalmology, suggest that eyedrops containing the drug atropine, given once a day, represent an attractive alternative.

Michael X. Repka of Johns Hopkins University and colleagues studied 419 children ages six and under who had been diagnosed with moderate amblyopia. Roughly half received the eye drops (which temporarily blur vision in the healthy eye), while the others were asked to wear the eye patch for a given number of hours each day. The researchers measured each child's visual acuity at the start of the study, and at five, 16 and 26 weeks of treatment. Improvement in both groups was comparable, with about three quarters of the patients exhibiting improved visual acuity in the lazy eye. Parents of the children who received the eyedrops reported higher satisfaction with the treatment, however. "With atropine, you simply put the drop in once in the morning and there's no more monitoring of the child for the day," Repka notes. "With the patch, children have to be continuously monitored since they often remove the patch."

"Despite the advantages of atropine," Repka adds, "our data suggests that ophthalmologists generally prescribe patching 97 percent of the time." Although the results obtained using the two treatment methods appear similar so far, the team does plan to follow the study participants until April 2003 to assess the long-term effects of patching versus eyedrops.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe