ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2019
Comparison of Autorefraction and Photorefraction with and without Cycloplegia Using 1% Tropicamide in Preschool Children.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Modeling of Cycloplegic Refraction Using Non-Cycloplegia Ocular Parameters With Emphasis on Lens-Related Features.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Comparison of photorefraction by Plusoptix A12 and cycloplegic autorefraction in children.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Comparative Study of Refraction between Wave Front-Based Refraction and Autorefraction without and with Cycloplegia in Children and Adolescents.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Accuracy of Photorefraction and Wavefront-Based Autorefraction in Children Under 3 Years of Age.Beyoglu eye journal · 2021Article
- Effect of Instrument Design and Technique on the Precision and Accuracy of Objective Refraction Measurement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Instrument-based, non-cycloplegic versus cycloplegic refraction in pediatric and young adult populations (≤25 years): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of the Plusoptix A09 photorefractor in children with ametropia is enhanced by cycloplegia with 1% tropicamide.
methodsA total of 70 eyes (70 children) were retrospectively reviewed. Noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegia with 1% tropicamide, cycloplegic photorefraction, and cycloplegic refraction with a tabletop autorefractometer were performed on all subjects in this order. Measurements were compared statistically.
resultsThe mean age was 45.9 ± 11.4 months. The mean spherical equivalent (0.61 ± 1.03 diopters (D); range, -2.38 to 3.63 D) and mean spherical power (1.16 ± 0.92 D; range, -1.25 to 3.75 D) values that were acquired from the photorefraction without cycloplegia showed statistically significant differences from those of the autorefraction with cycloplegia (mean spherical equivalent = 1.00 ± 1.27 D; range, -1.50 to 4.25 D, mean spherical power = 1.60 ± 1.14; range, -1.25 to 4.50 D). The mean difference for the spherical equivalent was -0.39 ± 0.93 D (
conclusionCycloplegia with 1% tropicamide did not improve the accuracy of photorefraction using Plusoptix A09 in preschool children. The spherical equivalent and spherical power values obtained by photorefraction with cycloplegia were significantly higher from those obtained by autorefraction with cycloplegia.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.