Comparative efficacy of tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% for cycloplegic refraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% for cycloplegic refraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Jeewanand Bist, Nabin Paudel, Sandeep Kandel, Sanajay Marasini","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cyclopentolate 1% is considered the drug of choice for effective cycloplegic refraction in clinical population, although tropicamide 1% is also reported to have similar effects with better tolerability.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacies of tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% for cycloplegic refraction.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for articles published until March 20, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: </strong>Randomized controlled trials that compared tropicamide 1% with cyclopentolate 1% in terms of differences in spherical equivalent refractive errors were included. The meta-analysis included only nonstrabismic participants with no restriction to age.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis method: </strong>The included studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 17 full-text reviews from 2555 identified studies, 4 randomized controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis included 171 eyes of 171 participants (age range, 4 months to 50 years), in each group, with all types of refractive errors. The results showed no statistically significant differences in mean spherical equivalent refractive error values between the two groups (mean difference, -0.05; standard error, 0.16; p=0.774). There was no heterogeneity observed between the studies (I2 = 0.00%, p=0.93). The outcome did not change when only children were included in the meta-analysis (age range, 4 months to 16 years; mean difference, -0.14; standard error, 0.21; p=0.508). In the risk-of-bias assessment, generally all studies were judged to have low risk of bias, but only one was judged to have low risk of bias across all seven domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% showed similar efficacies for cycloplegic refraction in nonstrabismic children and adults. Considering patient tolerability and drug safety, it may be practical to use tropicamide 1% in routine cycloplegic refractions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002226","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cyclopentolate 1% is considered the drug of choice for effective cycloplegic refraction in clinical population, although tropicamide 1% is also reported to have similar effects with better tolerability.
Objectives: The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacies of tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% for cycloplegic refraction.
Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for articles published until March 20, 2024.
Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: Randomized controlled trials that compared tropicamide 1% with cyclopentolate 1% in terms of differences in spherical equivalent refractive errors were included. The meta-analysis included only nonstrabismic participants with no restriction to age.
Study appraisal and synthesis method: The included studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation method.
Results: Of 17 full-text reviews from 2555 identified studies, 4 randomized controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis included 171 eyes of 171 participants (age range, 4 months to 50 years), in each group, with all types of refractive errors. The results showed no statistically significant differences in mean spherical equivalent refractive error values between the two groups (mean difference, -0.05; standard error, 0.16; p=0.774). There was no heterogeneity observed between the studies (I2 = 0.00%, p=0.93). The outcome did not change when only children were included in the meta-analysis (age range, 4 months to 16 years; mean difference, -0.14; standard error, 0.21; p=0.508). In the risk-of-bias assessment, generally all studies were judged to have low risk of bias, but only one was judged to have low risk of bias across all seven domains.
Conclusions: Tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% showed similar efficacies for cycloplegic refraction in nonstrabismic children and adults. Considering patient tolerability and drug safety, it may be practical to use tropicamide 1% in routine cycloplegic refractions.
期刊介绍:
Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.