Table 1.

Select sample of non-randomized studies

Study	Participants	Age	Follow up time	Results for motor success	Results for sen- sory success	Study investiga- tors’ conclusions
Dadeya 2001	Group 1 (50 par- tic- ipants): surgery AFTER comple- tion of ambly- opia therapy Group 2 (50 par- tic- ipants): surgery BEFORE com- pletion of ambly- opia therapy	< 9 years	3 months after surgery	Group 1: 84% Group 2: 75%	Group 1: 55% Group 2: 50%	“There was no sig- nificant differ- ence in motor suc- cess (84% vs 75%) and sensory suc- cess (55% vs 50%) whether amblyopia was fully treated or partially treated.”
Lam 1993	Group 1 (26 par- tic- ipants): surgery AFTER comple- tion of ambly- opia therapy Group 2 (21 par- tic- ipants): surgery BEFORE com- pletion of ambly- opia therapy	< 8 years	6 months after surgery	Group 1: 14/26 (54%) Group 2: 12/21 (57%)	Group 1: 8/14 (57%) Group 2: 5/12 (42%)	“There was no sig- nificant difference detected in motor or sensory outcome whether amblyopia was fully or only partially treated be- fore surgery.” It was noted that five of the 21 patients who had surgery before amblyopia therapy was complete re- portedly had spon- taneous re- versal of amblyopia after surgery
Weakley 1997	Group 1 (51 par- ticipants) : surgery in chil- dren with no am- blyopia, includ- ing those previ- ously treated for amblyopia Group 2 (51 par- tic- ipants): surgery BEFORE com- pletion of ambly- opia therapy	< 9 years	4 to 6 weeks after surgery	Group 1: 43/51 (84%) Group 2: 39/51 (76%)	Not assessed	“The presence of mild or moderate amblyopia does not appear to have an influence on surgi- cal outcome for pa- tients with acquired esotropia. The effect of am- blyopia on sensory outcome was not studied as most patients were too young for re- liable sensory test- ing”