OBJECTIVE: To compare refraction measured before and after pharmacologic cycloplegia. METHODS: This study used preliminary data from the Beaver Dam Offspring Study, which includes adult children of participants in the population-based Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study of older adults living in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Data were available for 5018 eyes of 2529 participants. Refraction was defined by the spherical equivalent (SE), using autorefractor readings. Differences were calculated as the SE after drops were administered minus the SE before drops were administered. Myopia was defined as SE of -1 diopter (D) or less; emmetropia, as SE more than -1 D and less than 1 D; and hyperopia, as SE of 1 D or more. RESULTS: The mean age was 48 years (range, 22-84 years). The mean difference in SE between measurements before and after cycloplegia was 0.29 D (95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.31). The difference decreased with age and varied by refractive status for participants younger than 50 years, with the largest differences observed among young persons with hyperopic refractive errors. Across all age groups, agreement on classifications of refraction was high (84%-92%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, clinically inconsequential differences were observed between SEs before and after pharmacologic cycloplegia, suggesting that cycloplegia may not be necessary in epidemiological studies of refraction in adults.
OBJECTIVE: To compare refraction measured before and after pharmacologic cycloplegia. METHODS: This study used preliminary data from the Beaver Dam Offspring Study, which includes adult children of participants in the population-based Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study of older adults living in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Data were available for 5018 eyes of 2529 participants. Refraction was defined by the spherical equivalent (SE), using autorefractor readings. Differences were calculated as the SE after drops were administered minus the SE before drops were administered. Myopia was defined as SE of -1 diopter (D) or less; emmetropia, as SE more than -1 D and less than 1 D; and hyperopia, as SE of 1 D or more. RESULTS: The mean age was 48 years (range, 22-84 years). The mean difference in SE between measurements before and after cycloplegia was 0.29 D (95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.31). The difference decreased with age and varied by refractive status for participants younger than 50 years, with the largest differences observed among young persons with hyperopic refractive errors. Across all age groups, agreement on classifications of refraction was high (84%-92%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, clinically inconsequential differences were observed between SEs before and after pharmacologic cycloplegia, suggesting that cycloplegia may not be necessary in epidemiological studies of refraction in adults.
Authors: Leon Nicholas Davies; Edward Arthur Harry Mallen; James Stuart Wolffsohn; Bernard Gilmartin Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: J Jorge; A Queiros; J González-Méijome; P Fernandes; J B Almeida; M A Parafita Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Reena Fotedar; Elena Rochtchina; Ian Morgan; Jie Jin Wang; Paul Mitchell; Kathryn A Rose Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jane Gwiazda; Wendy L Marsh-Tootle; Leslie Hyman; Mohamed Hussein; Thomas T Norton Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: K J Cruickshanks; T L Wiley; T S Tweed; B E Klein; R Klein; J A Mares-Perlman; D M Nondahl Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Phillippa M Cumberland; Yanchun Bao; Pirro G Hysi; Paul J Foster; Christopher J Hammond; Jugnoo S Rahi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katie M Williams; Geir Bertelsen; Phillippa Cumberland; Christian Wolfram; Virginie J M Verhoeven; Eleftherios Anastasopoulos; Gabriëlle H S Buitendijk; Audrey Cougnard-Grégoire; Catherine Creuzot-Garcher; Maja Gran Erke; Ruth Hogg; René Höhn; Pirro Hysi; Anthony P Khawaja; Jean-François Korobelnik; Janina Ried; Johannes R Vingerling; Alain Bron; Jean-François Dartigues; Astrid Fletcher; Albert Hofman; Robert W A M Kuijpers; Robert N Luben; Konrad Oxele; Fotis Topouzis; Therese von Hanno; Alireza Mirshahi; Paul J Foster; Cornelia M van Duijn; Norbert Pfeiffer; Cécile Delcourt; Caroline C W Klaver; Jugnoo Rahi; Christopher J Hammond Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Katie M Williams; Virginie J M Verhoeven; Phillippa Cumberland; Geir Bertelsen; Christian Wolfram; Gabriëlle H S Buitendijk; Albert Hofman; Cornelia M van Duijn; Johannes R Vingerling; Robert W A M Kuijpers; René Höhn; Alireza Mirshahi; Anthony P Khawaja; Robert N Luben; Maja Gran Erke; Therese von Hanno; Omar Mahroo; Ruth Hogg; Christian Gieger; Audrey Cougnard-Grégoire; Eleftherios Anastasopoulos; Alain Bron; Jean-François Dartigues; Jean-François Korobelnik; Catherine Creuzot-Garcher; Fotis Topouzis; Cécile Delcourt; Jugnoo Rahi; Thomas Meitinger; Astrid Fletcher; Paul J Foster; Norbert Pfeiffer; Caroline C W Klaver; Christopher J Hammond Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Emilie Matamoros; Pierre Ingrand; François Pelen; Yacine Bentaleb; Michel Weber; Jean-François Korobelnik; Eric Souied; Nicolas Leveziel Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.817