ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
A comparison of cycloplegic effect of cyclopentolate 0.5% versus 1.0% eye drops with five different refraction measurement modalities in young adults.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Three Types of Specially-Designed Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses on Astigmatism: A Two-Year Result.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the refraction before and after cycloplegia with 0.5% and 1.0% cyclopentolate eye drops using five different measurement modalities.
methodsThis prospective, clinical comparative study enrolled 96 eyes of 48 healthy patients with a mean age of 26.6 ± 4.21 years (range: 19-34). Subjective refraction, retinoscopy, and objective refraction were measured using three autorefractometers: Topcon KR-800 (TC), Retinomax K-plus 3 (RM + 3), and Retinomax K-plus Screeen (RM + S) under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. Cycloplegia was performed in the right eye using 0.5% and in the left eye with 1.0% cyclopentolate eye drops. Differences in refraction in noncycloplegia and cycloplegia, between cycloplegia with 0.5% and 1.0% cyclopentolate, and between the devices were investigated.
resultsCycloplegic mean spherical equivalent was -1.77 ± 2.34 diopters (D) (-9.75 to + 1.625). All approaches showed a statistically significant hyperopic shift (p < 0.001, each) after induction of cycloplegia using both regimes. Lowest median (interquartile range) hyperopic shift was shown by TC (0.25 D (0.38)) and retinoscopy (0.25D (0.75)), and the highest by RM + 3 (0.75 (1.31)). No statistically significant differences between cycloplegia using 0.5% and 1.0% regimens were shown in all modalities (p > 0.05, each). In noncycloplegia, there were greater differences compared to cycloplegia. No influence of iris color on the refraction was found.
conclusionAfter induction of cycloplegia all devices showed a hyperopic shift and good comparability to retinoscopy. In all measurement modalities, no significant refraction differences between 0.5% and 1.0% cyclopentolate eye drops were seen. Therefore, 0.5% cyclopentolate was proven to have a sufficient effect with presumably better tolerability. KEY MESSAGES: What is known Cycloplegic refraction is a key test in the evaluation of any patient with active accommodation. The most frequently used clinical tests to determine the exact refraction are retinoscopy, subjective refraction, and objective refraction using autorefractometry. What is new No significant differences in the refraction between cycloplegia using 0.5% and 1.0% cyclopentolate eye drops were found. In noncycloplegia, hand-held autorefractometers tend to measure higher myopia. The evaluation of cycloplegic refraction showed good comparability between retinoscopy and subjective refraction as well as three different autorefractometers.
Indexed as
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.