ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Paediatric refraction practices: access to cyclopegia, barriers, and disparities among eye care professionals in Kuala Lumpur.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate paediatric refraction is essential for detecting and managing vision issues, including latent hyperopia, amblyopia, accommodative esotropia, and progressive myopia. Cycloplegic agents are critical for obtaining precise measurements in children, yet their use varies due to professional, regulatory, and systemic barriers. In Malaysia, where refractive services are divided between the public and private sectors, limited data exist on how eye care professionals implement cycloplegic refraction in paediatric practice.
methodsThis cross-sectional study employed a self-administered questionnaire to survey licensed ophthalmologists, optometrists, and opticians within a 50-km radius of Kuala Lumpur. Participants were recruited through electronic invitations and purposive field visits. Descriptive statistics summarised paediatric refraction practices by profession and sector, and exploratory chi-square, Fisher's Exact, and trend analyses assessed sectoral differences.
resultsAmong 222 respondents (61.3% private; 38.7% public), analysis revealed a statistically significant sectoral divide in practice patterns (p < 0.001). Public-sector optometrists administered cycloplegia to 82.3% of children aged 5-9 years, compared with 15.7% in private practice, representing an Odds Ratio of 24.97 (95% CI 10.35-60.21; χ² = 63.84, df = 1, p < 0.001). Private opticians reported 0% cycloplegia use across all age groups, while 79.5% of private optometrists who never used cycloplegia cited 'prohibited by law.' Public ophthalmologists commonly delegated refraction, with only 8.3% performing refraction in children aged 5-9 years. Free-text responses highlighted additional barriers, including workflow constraints, limited training, and misconceptions about the role of cycloplegia.
conclusionsPaediatric refraction practices in Kuala Lumpur vary substantially across sectors and professional groups. Despite its clinical importance, cycloplegia remains under-utilised-particularly in private practice. These exploratory findings highlight the need to improve access to cycloplegic agents, clarify professional scope, and address legal and institutional barriers as priorities for strengthening paediatric eye care in Malaysia.
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.