Cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for epidemiological studies.

Abstract

Many studies on children have shown that lack of cycloplegia is associated with slight overestimation of myopia and marked errors in estimates of the prevalence of emmetropia and hyperopia. Non-cycloplegic refraction is particularly problematic for studies of associations with risk factors. The consensus around the importance of cycloplegia in children left undefined at what age, if any, cycloplegia became unnecessary. It was often implicitly assumed that cycloplegia is not necessary beyond childhood or early adulthood, and thus, the protocol for the classical studies of refraction in older adults did not include cycloplegia. Now that population studies of refractive error are beginning to fill the gap between schoolchildren and older adults, whether cycloplegia is required for measuring refractive error in this age range, needs to be defined. Data from the Tehran Eye Study show that, without cycloplegia, there are errors in the estimation of myopia, emmetropia and hyperopia in the age range 20-50, just as in children. Similar results have been reported in an analysis of data from the Beaver Dam Offspring Eye Study. If the only important outcome measure of a particular study is the prevalence of myopia, then cycloplegia may not be crucial in some cases. But, without cycloplegia, measurements of other refractive categories as well as spherical equivalent are unreliable. In summary, the current evidence suggests that cycloplegic refraction should be considered as the gold standard for epidemiological studies of refraction, not only in children, but in adults up to the age of 50.