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 senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has 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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe