Abstract:Objective: To characterize the current status, research hotspots, and differences in the evolution of Chinese- and English-language clinical research on amblyopia from 2015 to 2025, and to provide a reference for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of amblyopia and future research. Methods: Chinese- and English-language studies on the clinical management of amblyopia were retrieved from CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Bibliometric and visualization analyses of publication output, institutions, authors, and keywords were conducted using CiteSpace 6.4.R1 and VOSviewer 1.6.19. Results:A total of 1,302 publications were included, comprising 920 Chinese-language and 382 English-language publications. The annual number of Chinese-language publications declined after 2020, whereas that of English-language publications showed an overall increasing trend. Relevant studies involved 18 countries, with relatively closer interinstitutional collaboration observed in the English-language literature; the collaboration networks of core authors in both Chinese- and English-language literature exhibited multiple clusters. A total of 360 and 283 keyword nodes were identified in the Chinese- and English-language literature, respectively. High-frequency keywords in both groups mainly involved four aspects: amblyopia types, study populations, outcome measures, and treatment modalities. Both Chinese- and English-language studies focused on anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia. Chinese-language studies predominantly investigated children of different age groups, whereas adult amblyopia received earlier attention in the English-language 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. 19 and 13 keyword clusters were identified in the Chinese- and English-language literature, respectively. Burst analysis showed that digital treatment such as binocular dichoptic training, emerged relatively earlier in the English-language literature, and quality of life, and amblyopia risk factors screening have received considerable attention in recent years. In Chinese language literature, attention to digital visual training and traditional Chinese medicine interventions has gradually increased. English-language studies initiated neuroimaging assessments using resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging at an earlier stage. Conclusions: From 2015 to 2025, Chinese- and English-language 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 alone 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, digital binocular 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.
