Under-correction or full correction of myopia? A meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of full-correction versus under-correction on myopia progression. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane library. Methodological quality assessment of the literature was evaluated according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2, Biostat Inc., USA). RESULTS: The present meta-analysis included six studies (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and four non-RCTs) with 695 subjects (full-correction group, n = 371; under-correction group, n = 324) aged 6 to 33 years. Using cycloplegic refraction, the pooled difference in mean of myopia progression was - 0.179 D [lower and higher limits: -0.383, 0.025], which was higher but not in full correction group as compared to under correction group (p = 0.085). Regarding studies using non-cycloplegic subjective refraction according to maximum plus for maximum visual acuity, the pooled difference in myopia progression was 0.128 D [lower and higher limits: -0.057, 0.312] higher in under-correction group compared with full-correction group (p = 0.175). Although, difference in myopia progression did not reach significant level in either cycloplegic or non-cycloplegic refraction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, myopic eyes which are fully corrected with non-cycloplegic refraction with maximum plus sphere, are less prone to myopia progression, in comparison to those which were under corrected. However, regarding cycloplegic refraction, further studies are needed to better understand these trends

No disponible

Comparison of cyclopentolate versus tropicamide cycloplegia: A systematic review and meta-analysis / Comparación de la cicloplejia con Ciclopentolato y Tropicamida: revisión sistemática y meta-análisis

Purpose: The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of cyclopentolate and tropicamide in controlling accommodation during refraction. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Science direct and Ovid databases by the key words: "tropicamide"; "cyclopentolate"; "cycloplegia" and "cycloplegic" from inception to April 2016. Methodological quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine and modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2; Biostat Inc., USA). Results: The present meta-analysis included six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three case-control studies). Pooled standardized difference in the mean changes in the refractive error was 0.175 D [lower and upper limits: -0.089; 0.438] more plus in the cyclopentolate group compared to the tropicamide group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.194; Cochrane Q value = 171.72 (p < 0.05); I2 = 95.34%). Egger's regression intercept was -5.33 (p = 0.170). Considering type of refractive errors; refractive assessment procedure and age group; although cycloplegic effect of cyclopentolate was stronger than tropicamide; however, this effect was only statistically significant in children; hyperopic patients and with retinoscopy. Conclusion: We suggest that tropicamide may be considered as a viable substitute for cyclopentolate due to its rapid onset of action. Although these results should be used cautiously in infants and in patients with high hyperopia or strabismus when using tropicamide as the sole cycloplegic agent especially in situations that the findings are variable or there is no consistency between the examination results and clinical manifestations of the visual problems

Objetivo: El objetivo del presente meta-análisis es comparar la eficacia de ciclopentolato y tropicamida a la hora de controlar la acomodación durante la refracción. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda amplia en la literatura en las bases de datos de PubMed, Scopus, Science direct y Ovid, utilizando las palabras clave: "tropicamida", "ciclopentolato", "cicloplejia" y "ciclopléjico" desde sus inicios a Abril de 2016. La calidad metodológica de la literatura se evaluó con arreglo a Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine y la escala Newcastle-Ottawa modificada. Los análisis estadísticos se realizaron utilizando el software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (versión 2, Biostat Inc., EEUU). Resultados: El presente meta-análisis incluyó seis estudios (tres ensayos controlados aleatorizados y tres estudios de casos-control). La diferencia estandarizada combinada de los cambios medios del error refractivo fue de 0,175 D [límites inferior y superior: -0,089, 0,438], más acusada en el grupo ciclopentolato con respecto al grupo tropicamida aunque, sin embargo, esta diferencia no fue estadísticamente significativa (p = 0,194, Valor Q de Cochrane = 171,72 (p < 0,05), I2 = 95,34%). El valor del intercepto de regresión de Egger fue de -5,33 (p = 0,17). Considerando el tipo de errores refractivos, el procedimiento de valoración refractiva y el grupo de edad, aunque el efecto ciclopléjico de ciclopentolato fue más fuerte que el de tropicamida, dicho efecto fue únicamente significativo en niños, pacientes hipermétropes, y con retinoscopia. Conclusión: Sugerimos la consideración de tropicamida como sustituto viable de ciclopentolato, debido a su rápido inicio de acción. Aunque estos resultados deberían utilizarse con precaución en niños y en pacientes con elevada hipermetropía o estrabismo al utilizar tropicamida como único agente ciclopléjico, especialmente en situaciones en las que los hallazgos sean variables, o no exista consistencia entre los resultados del examen y las manifestaciones clínicas de los problemas visuales