Comparison of the Level of Difference between Cycloplegic and Noncycloplegic Refraction in Different age Groups

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Khatam Al-Anbia Hospital, Mashhad, Iran

2 Assistant Professor and Fellowship of Strabism and Echoloplastic, Khatam Al-Anbia Hospital, Mashhad, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Bio-Statistic, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad, Iran

4 Master of Science (MSc) Student in Optician


The goal of this study was to compare the level of difference between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction in different age groups.
Materials and Methods
This correlation study was performed on 400 eyes of 200 participants in Khatam Al-Anbia hospital. For all participants, non cycloplegic refraction was done. Cycloplegia was performed, using Cyclopentolate 1%. Then cycloplegic refraction was done with the same autorefractometer. The amount of accommodation suppressed by the drug and possible effects of age, gender, type of refractive error and occupation on this amount was compared in different age groups. SPSS ver.13 statistical software was used for data analysis. P-value less than 0.05 considered as significant.
Average age of participants was 20.11±15.50 (range 2-59). The amount of accommodation suppressed by cyclopentolate 1% was significantly different among various age groups (p<0.001). The amount of accommodation suppressed by Cyclopentolate 1% showed no difference between myopic and hyperopic patients in any age groups (p>0.10 for each eye). Also, there was no correlation between occupation, sex and the amount of accommodation suppressed during cycloplegia (p=0.45 and p>0.10 respectively).
Cycloplegic refraction is an effective procedure for patients under 50 years old. The type of refractive error, sex and occupation had no effect on the amount of accommodation suppressed by Cyclopentolate 1%.


1- Schimitzek T, Legreze WA. Accuracy of a new photorefractometer in young and adult patients. Greafes Arch Clin
Exp Ophthalmol 2005; 243:637-45. Epub 2005 Jan.
2. Manny RE, Shin JA, Zadnik K, Kleinstain RN, Mutt Do. Cycloplegia in African- American children. Optom Vis Sci
1999; 76:102-107.
3. Salveson S, Kohler M. Precision in automated refraction. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1991; 69: 338-41.
4. Gao l, Wang J, Zhuo X, Yan M, Yan K, Xue B. Effect of ocular accommodation on refractive components in
children . Jpn J Ophthalmol 2002; 18:208-213.
5. Gao l, Zhuo X, Kwok AK, Yun M, Wang J. The change in ocular refractive components after cycloplegia in
children. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2002; 46:293-298.
6. Yee-Fong C, Al-Hong C. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in
primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 14:68-74.
7. Surya Kumar R, Bobien WR. The manifestation of non-cycloplegic refractive state in preschool children in
dependent on autorefractor design. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80:578-586.
8. Manny RE, Hussein M, Sheiman M, Kurtz D, Niemann K, Zinzer K. Tropicamide (1%): an effective cycloplegic
agent for myopic children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42:1728-1735.
9. Hamasaki I, Hasebe S, Kimura S, Miyata M, Ohtsuki H. Cycloplegic effect of 0.5%tropicamide and
0.5%phenylephrine mixed eye drops: objective assessment in Japanese schoolchildren with myopia. Jpn J Ophthalmol
2007; 51:111-115.
10. Konstantopoulos A, Yadegarfar G, Elgohary M. Near work, education, family history, and myopia in Greek
conscripts. Eye 2007; 12: 34-38.
11. Wensor M, McCarty CA, Talor HR. Prevalence and risk factors of myopia in Victoria, Australia. Arch Ophthalmol
1999; 117:658-663.
12. Garcia Serrano JL, Lopez R, Mylonopoulos Caripidis T. Variables related to the first presbyopia correction. Arch
Soc Esp Oftalmol 2002; 77:597-604.
13.Wong TY, Foster PJ, Johnson GJ, Seah SK. Education, socioeconomic status, and ocular dimensions in Chinese
adults: the Tanjong Pagar Survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:963-968.