Comparison of cyclopentolate versus tropicamide cycloplegia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of cyclopentolate and tropicamide in controlling accommodation during refraction. MethodsA 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). ResultsThe 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. ConclusionWe 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.