ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Cycloplegic and Non-Cycloplegic Refraction in School-Aged Children: A Cross-Sectional, Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Individual and School-Level Factors Associated with Pediatric Eye Disorders and Referral Adherence in an Enhanced School-Based Vision Screening Program in Ghana.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Individual and school-level factors associated with suspected pediatric eye disorders and referral adherence in an enhanced school-based vision screening program in Ghana.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The aim of the study was to evaluate the differences between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic refraction in school-aged children. Materials and methods This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted at a tertiary care institute in central India, comprising 110 children aged 5-15 years. Visual acuity was recorded, and anterior segment examination was performed. Undilated autorefraction was done using an autokerato-refractometer. The participants were cyclopleged using eye drop cyclopentolate 1%, one drop every 15 minutes in both eyes, for over one hour. The vertical pupillary diameter was measured using slit lamp biomicroscopy. Cycloplegic autorefraction was done using the same autokerato-refractometer. Autorefraction values of the right eye were recorded to eliminate bias. Results The mean spherical equivalent (SE) in dioptres without cycloplegia was -0.54, and with cycloplegia was +0.18. The mean ± SD of the difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic refraction was 0.72 ± 0.72. Without cycloplegia, SE determined 69 (62.7%) participants as myopic, six (5.5%) as emmetropic, and 35 (31.8%) as hypermetropic. Whereas, with cycloplegia, SE determined 45 (40.9%) as myopic, two (1.8%) as emmetropic, and 63 (57.3%) as hypermetropic. Conclusion The study discovered a strong correlation between SE (with cycloplegic) and SE (without cycloplegic), and this correlation was statistically significant. Myopia was overestimated, and hypermetropia was underestimated with non-cycloplegic refraction compared to cycloplegic refraction. Hence, cycloplegic refraction is recommended for the precise measurement of refractive error in children.
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.