目的：梳理2015-2025年中英文弱视临床研究的现状、热点及演变差异，为弱视临床诊疗与相关研究提供参考。

方法：检索CNKI、VIP、Wanfang和Web of Science(WoS)数据库中收录的弱视临床研究中英文文献，采用CiteSpace 6.4.R1、VOSviewer 1.6.19软件对文献发文量、机构、作者、关键词等信息进行可视化分析。

结果：共纳入文献1 302篇，其中中文文献920篇，英文文献382篇。中文文献发文量2019年后有所下降，英文文献发文量呈增长趋势； 相关研究涉及18个国家，英文文献机构间协作合作联系相对更为紧密，中英文核心作者合作网络均呈多集群分布； 中英文文献分别获得360个、283个关键词节点，高频关键词均涉及弱视类型、研究人群、评价指标和治疗方式4个方面。中英文均关注屈光参差性和斜视性弱视，中文研究对象以不同年龄段儿童为主，成人弱视在英文文献中受到较早关注； 视力、对比敏感度和立体视功能是共同关注的主要评价指标，屈光矫正与遮盖疗法是基础治疗方式。中文和英文文献分别形成19个和13个研究聚类。突现分析显示，双眼分视等数字化治疗在英文文献中出现相对较早，近年生活质量及弱视风险因素筛查等受到较多关注； 中文文献近年来对数字化视觉训练、中医药干预的关注逐渐增加； 英文研究更早开展静息态功能磁共振的神经影像学评估。

结论：2015-2025年中英文弱视临床研究呈多元化发展，在主要弱视类型、视觉功能评价及基础治疗方面具有较高一致性，但部分研究热点的出现时间和关注重点存在差异。弱视临床研究正逐渐由单一视力改善向双眼视觉功能恢复、多维度疗效评价及视觉神经机制探索拓展，治疗模式亦趋向数字化和个体化。未来应进一步优化规范化治疗，加强成人弱视、数字化双眼视觉训练、视觉神经机制及多维度疗效评价研究，并通过高质量临床研究探索中西医结合干预的临床价值。

METHODS: Clinical studies on amblyopia in both Chinese and English were retrieved from the CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and Web of Science(WoS)databases. Bibliometric and visualization analyses of publication output, institutions, authors, and keywords were conducted using Cite Space 6.4.R1 and VOS viewer 1.6.19.

RESULTS: Totally 1 302 publications were included, comprising 920 Chinese and 382 English publications. The publications of Chinese literature declined after 2019, while that of English literature showed an upward trend. Relevant studies involved 18 countries, and the institutional cooperation connections of English literature were relatively closer. The core author cooperation networks of both Chinese and English literature presented multi-cluster distribution. A total of 360 and 283 keyword nodes were obtained from Chinese and English literature, respectively. The high-frequency keywords of both literatures covered four aspects, including amblyopia types, research populations, evaluation indicators, and treatment methods. Both Chinese and English studies focus on anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia. Chinese studies predominantly investigated children of different age groups, whereas adult amblyopia received earlier attention in the English literature. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereopsis were the major outcome measures of common interest, while optical correction and occlusion therapy remained the mainstay treatments. Totally 19 and 13 keyword clusters were identified in the Chinese and English literatures, respectively. Burst analysis indicated that digital treatment such as binocular dichoptic training appeared relatively early in English literature. In recent years, quality of life and risk factor screening for amblyopia received increasing attention. In Chinese literature, growing focus was placed on digital visual training and traditional Chinese medicine intervention. In addition, neuroimaging evaluation based on resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging was conducted much earlier in English studies.

CONCLUSION:From 2015 to 2025, Chinese and English clinical research on amblyopia has shown diversified development, with substantial similarities in the major types of amblyopia investigated, visual function assessment, and basic treatment modalities, but differences in the timing and emphasis of some research hotspots. Clinical research on amblyopia is gradually expanding from improvement in visual acuity toward restoration of binocular visual function, multidimensional outcome assessment, and investigation of visual neural mechanisms, while treatment strategies are becoming increasingly digitalized and individualized. Future research should further optimize standardized treatment, strengthen investigations into adult amblyopia, binocular digital vision training, visual neural mechanisms, and multidimensional outcome assessment, and evaluate the clinical value of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine interventions through high-quality clinical studies.