Comparative efficacy of tropicamide 1% and cyclopentolate 1% for cycloplegic refraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002226
Jeewanand Bist, Nabin Paudel, Sandeep Kandel, Sanajay Marasini
{"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=0.51). 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":"175-180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","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":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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=0.51). 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.

1% tropicamide和1% cyclopentolate治疗睫状体麻痹性屈光的比较疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:1%的环戊酸酯被认为是治疗临床人群中有效的单眼麻痹性屈光的首选药物,尽管1%的托品酰胺也被报道有类似的效果,但耐受性更好。目的:本荟萃分析的目的是评估1%托品酰胺和1%环戊酸酯治疗睫状体麻痹性屈光的疗效。数据来源:MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials系统检索到2024年3月20日之前发表的文章。研究资格标准、参与者和干预措施:纳入了比较1%托品酰胺和1%环戊酸盐在球面等效屈光不正方面差异的随机对照试验。荟萃分析仅包括无年龄限制的非斜视参与者。研究评价与综合方法:采用Cochrane风险偏倚工具-2对纳入的研究进行评价。meta分析采用随机效应模型和限制性最大似然估计法。结果:在2555项已确定研究的17篇全文综述中,4项随机对照试验被纳入定量综合。荟萃分析包括每组171名参与者(年龄范围从4个月到50岁)的171只眼睛,所有类型的屈光不正。结果显示,两组患者平均球面等效屈光不正值差异无统计学意义(平均差异为-0.05;标准误差0.16;p = 0.774)。研究间未发现异质性(I2 = 0.00%, p=0.93)。当将独生子女纳入meta分析时,结果没有改变(年龄范围,4个月至16岁;平均差值-0.14;标准误差0.21;p = 0.508)。在偏倚风险评估中,通常所有研究都被判定为低偏倚风险,但在所有七个领域中只有一个研究被判定为低偏倚风险。结论:1% Tropicamide和1% cyclopentolate对非斜视儿童和成人的单眼麻痹性屈光有相似的疗效。考虑到患者的耐受性和药物安全性,1%的托品酰胺用于常规的睫状体麻痹屈光可能是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Optometry and Vision Science
Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信