Systematic review and meta-analysis on the agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children
Salma Wilson1, Irene Ctori1, Rakhee Shah1
1Division of Optometry and Visual Science, City, University of London, London, UK.
Insights
Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix autorefractors show promise for estimating refractive error in young children. However, cycloplegic refraction remains the preferred method for accurate measurements in children up to 12 years old.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Pediatric Optometry
Background:
- Accurate refractive error assessment is crucial for pediatric eye care.
- Non-cycloplegic refraction offers convenience, but its diagnostic agreement with cycloplegic refraction in children requires evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine the diagnostic agreement between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children aged 12 years and younger.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines.
- Included studies compared non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children ≤12 years.
- Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2, with meta-analysis and subgroup analyses performed.
Main Results:
- Ten studies with 2724 participants were included.
- Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix showed no significant difference from cycloplegic refraction (MD -0.08 D).
- Non-cycloplegic Retinomax and Canon autorefractors showed significant differences compared to cycloplegic refraction.
Conclusions:
- Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix may be useful for estimating refractive error in young children with low to moderate hyperopia.
- Cycloplegic refraction remains the gold standard for refractive error measurement in children up to 12 years.
- Further research is needed to explore factors influencing agreement between methods across different refractive errors and ages.
Objective:
To determine the diagnostic agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children.
Method:
The study methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for comparative studies exploring refraction performed on children under non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. There was no restriction on the year of publication; however, only publications in the English language were eligible. Inclusion criteria consisted of children aged ≤12 years, any degree or type of refractive error, either sex and no ocular or binocular co-morbidities. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to synthesise data from all included studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken for those studies with a risk of bias.
Results:
Ten studies consisting of 2724 participants were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The test for overall effect was not significant when comparing non-cycloplegic Plusoptix and cycloplegic autorefractors (Z = 0.34, p = 0.74). The pooled mean difference (MD) was -0.08 D (95% CI -0.54 D, +0.38 D) with a prediction interval of -1.72 D to +1.56 D. At less than 0.25 D, this indicates marginal overestimation of myopia and underestimation of hyperopia under non-cycloplegic conditions. When comparing non-cycloplegic autorefraction with a Retinomax and Canon autorefractor to cycloplegic refraction, a significant difference was found (Z = 9.79, p < 0.001) and (Z = 4.61, p < 0.001), respectively.
Discussion:
Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix is the most useful autorefractor for estimating refractive error in young children with low to moderate levels of hyperopia. Results also suggest that cycloplegic refraction must remain the test of choice when measuring refractive error ≤12 years of age. There were insufficient data to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. Further research is needed to investigate the agreement between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in relation to the type and level of refractive error at different ages.
