Optometry & Visual Performance 176 Volume 14 | Issue 2 | June 2026 which was based on the previous studies and clinical findings. The first part of the Performa consisted of socio-demographic characteristics; the second part contained ocular parameters such as visual acuity and objective refraction. The last part consisted of RNFL thickness, including nasal, temporal, supranasal, supra-temporal, intranasal, and infra-temporal, which was measured by OCT. The responses recorded in the Performa were recorded and analyzed using Statistical Package for social sciences (SPSS) version 21. The descriptive analysis was done on the categorical and continuous variables. Percentages and frequencies were reported for categorical variables, and mean and standard deviation were recorded for continuous variables. As the data were normally distributed, a parametric approach was used during inferential analysis. In inferential analysis, all statistical tests used a confidence interval of 95%, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Therefore, one-way ANOVA and paired sample t-test were used to compare the mean difference of RNFL thickness in different types of amblyopia and to compare the RNFL thickness of amblyopic and non-amblyopic eyes. Results A total of 140 eyes of 70 patients were included in the study. The mean age of participants included in the study was 10.20 (+/-2.811), ranging from 5 to 16 years. Both genders were included in the study, out of which males outnumbered females. Out of the total, 37 patients were from urban areas. Treatment included: 34 (48.6%) were using only glasses, while 36 (51.4%) were using both glasses and patching therapy (Table 1). A majority of the patients (54; 77.1%) presented with a family history of amblyopia (Figure 1). The mean and standard deviation of best-corrected visual acuity were 0.81±0.570 logMAR in the amblyopic eyes, whereas the best-corrected visual acuity in the non-amblyopic eyes was 0.12±0.145 logMAR (Table 2). The most common presenting complaint was blurred vision (74.3%), as shown in Figure 2. The one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean difference in RNFL thickness among different types of amblyopia. There was no statistically significant difference between the various types of amblyopia (Table 3). The paired sample t-test was used to compare the RNFL thickness of the amblyopic and non-amblyopic eyes. Although the amblyopic RNFL was thicker than that of non-amblyopic eyes, no statistically significant difference was found (Table 4). Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male 40 57.1 Female 30 42.9 Area of residence Urban 37 52.9 Rural 33 47.1 Other activities Outdoor activities 44 62.9 Indoor activities 26 37.9 Refractive error Myopia 14 20.0 Hyperopia 18 25.7 Astigmatism 38 54.3 Treatment Glasses only 34 48.6 Glasses with patching 36 51.4 Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics Figure 1. Types of amblyopia Variables N Mean Standard Deviation BCVA in Amblyopic Eyes 95 0.81 0.570 BCVA in Non-Amblyopic Eyes 45 0.12 0.145 Table 2. Ocular Parameters Figure 2. Chief complaints of amblyopic patients
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEyMDQ0Nw==