Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Cycloplegic refraction by 1% cyclopentolate in young adults: is it the gold standard? The Anyang University Students Eye Study (AUSES). |
| Authors: |
Yun-Yun Sun, Shi-Fei Wei, Shi-Ming Li, Jian-Ping Hu, Xiao-Hui Yang, Kai Cao, Cai-Xia Lin, Jia-Ling Du, Ji-Yuan Guo, He Li, Luo-Ru Liu, Morgan, Ian G., Ning-li Wang |
| Source: |
British Journal of Ophthalmology; May2019, Vol. 103 Issue 5, p654-658, 5p, 5 Graphs |
| Abstract: |
Aims To document the difference between noncycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction and explore its associated factors in Chinese young adults. Methods A school-based study including 7971 undergraduates was conducted in Anyang, Henan Province, China. Cycloplegia was achieved with two drops of 1% cyclopentolate and 1 drop of Mydrin P (Tropicamide 0.5%, phenylephrine HCl 0.5%) with a 5 min interval. Non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refractions were measured by an autorefractor. A pairedsample t-test and Spearman correlation analysis were used for analysis with data from only the right eyes included. Results Of the 7971 students examined, 7793 (97.8%) with complete data were included, aging 20.2±1.5 years. Male students accounted for 36.8%. Overall, there was a significant difference between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic SE (spherical equivalent) of 0.83±0.81D (p<0.01). The difference was 1.80±1.11D, 1.26±0.93D and 0.69±0.69D for those with cycloplegic hyperopia, emmetropia and myopia, respectively (p<0.01 for all). Those with a hyperopic shift less than 0.25D and 0.5D accounted for 11.1% and 34.1%, respectively. A significant relationship was found between difference in SE and cycloplegic refraction (r=0.33, b=0.11, p<0.01). Without cycloplegia, prevalence of hyperopia and emmetropia would be underestimated by 6.2% (1.0% vs 7.2%) and 5.7% (3.8% vs 9.5%), respectively, with prevalence of myopia and high myopia overestimated by 12.1% (95.3% vs 83.2%) and 6.1% (17.2% vs 11.1%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of British Journal of Ophthalmology is the property of BMJ Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Complementary Index |
