Comparison of Cycloplegic versus Non Cycloplegic Refraction in Hyperopic Children and Adults

Authors

  • Tania Gull Student (BS Optometry), Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, The Superior University Lahore, Sargodha Campus Author
  • Toseef Ul Rahman Lecturer (Optometry), Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, The Superior University Lahore, Sargodha Campus Author
  • Qurat Ul Ain Student (BS Optometry), Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, The Superior University Lahore, Sargodha Campus Author
  • Zaryab Khan Lecturer (Optometry), Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, The Superior University Lahore, Sargodha Campus Author
  • Amber Noreen Student (BS Optometry), Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, The Superior University Lahore, Sargodha Campus Author
  • Rabia Naeem Student (Bs Optometry), Faculty of Allied Health Science, The Superior University Lahore, Sargodha Campus Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63163/jpehss.v4i1.132

Keywords:

Hyperopia, Latent hyperopia, Cycloplegic refraction, Non-cycloplegic refraction, Children, Adults

Abstract

Background: Precise evaluation of hyperopia is crucial for correct diagnosis and treatment, particularly in youngsters when accommodation may conceal underlying hyperopia. In this study, hyperopic children and adults’ cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic refraction was examined. Objective: To assess the extent of latent hyperopia and its clinical importance, as well as to compare cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic refraction in hyperopic children and adults. Methodology: 114 hyperopic individuals, including adults and children, underwent both cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic refraction as part of a comparative cross-sectional study. To compare refractive results between and within groups, data were examined using suitable non-parametric statistical tests. Results: The distribution of all the variables was not normal (p < 0.05). Both visual acuity (Z = 6.300, p = 0.000) and spherical equivalent (Z = -8.433, p = 0.000) showed statistically significant differences between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic readings, with non-cycloplegic values consistently lower, according to within-group analysis. Cycloplegic SE, non-cycloplegic SE, and latent hyperopia showed significant differences between children and adults (p < 0.01) according to between-group analysis, however non-cycloplegic visual acuity showed no significant difference (p = 0.978). Compared to adults, children had higher mean rankings, which suggests more latent hyperopia. In both groups, cycloplegic refraction generally produced greater SE and VA values. Conclusion: When measuring refractive error, cycloplegic refraction is more accurate than noncycloplegic refraction, which tends to underestimate hyperopia because of accommodating impact. In children, the discrepancy is more noticeable, underscoring the significance of cycloplegia in pediatric refractive evaluation. As a result, cycloplegic refraction should be regarded as crucial for the proper diagnosis and treatment of hyperopia, especially in younger populations.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-31