2026 - 6 Issue

Review

The Significance of Cycloplegia in The Diagnosis of Refractive Errors: Indications, Benefits, and Risks in Pediatric Patients. A Review

Full Text links

Summary

Quality of vision in children currently represents a significant global public health issue. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for ensuring optimal visual development during childhood. On January 1, 2026, a new screening program was launched in the Czech Republic entitled “Early Detection of Serious Eye Defects (VZOV) in Children Under 3 Years of Age.” Several countries worldwide have established national guidelines defining the characteristics and components of high-quality eye examination for pediatric patients. While approaches may differ regarding the organization of pediatric eye care and the specific roles of the particular specialists involved, there is complete consensus regarding the principles governing the treatment of refractive errors. Cycloplegics and mydriatics are essential in pediatric ophthalmology, as they enable the diagnosis and treatment of certain eye conditions. Cycloplegia is considered most valuable for the accurate assessment of refractive errors. However, the occurrence of certain adverse effects – particularly in susceptible patients – has prompted a review of the literature regarding the benefits and risks associated with their use. These risks are categorized into local and systemic adverse effects; the latter are rare and occur primarily in patients with specific risk factors.

References

  1. Wen G, Tarczy-Hornoch K, McKean-Cowdin R, et al. Prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism in non-Hispanic white and Asian children: Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(10):2109-2116. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.06.039
  2. Giordano L, Friedman DS, Repka MX, et al. Prevalence of refractive error among preschool children in an urban population: the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology, Volume 117, Issue 6, June 2010, Pages 1278-1279. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.030
  3. Friedman DS, Repka MX, Katz J, et al. Prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus in white and African American children aged 6 through 71 months: the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116 (11):2128-2134. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.04.034
  4. Tarczy-Hornoch K, Cotter SA, Borchert M, et al. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in Asian and non-Hispanic white preschool children: Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(6):1220-1226. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.12.029
  5. Loba P, Gotz-Więckowska A, Hautz Wm Bakunowicz-Łazarczyk A. Guidelines for the management of strabismus in children Klinika Oczna. 2012;124(3):127-130.
  6. Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study Group. Prevalence of myopia and hyperopia in 6- to 72-month-old African American and Hispanic children: the multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease study. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(1):140-147.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.009
  7. Kleinstein RN, Sinnott LT, Jones-Jordan LA, et al. New cases of myopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012; 30:1274-1279.
  8. Vitale S, Sperduto RD, Ferris FL 3rd. Increased prevalence of myopia in the United States between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(10):1632-1639. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.1449
  9. Metodický pokyn k provádění včasného záchytu závažných očních vad u dětí v ČR 1a. Příloha č. 1 Informace pro zákonného zástupce dítěte, 1b. Příloha č. 2 Doporučený postup očního vyšetření u nejmenších dětí a dětí předškolního věku v běžné oftalmologické ambulantní praxi Věstník 5/2025 Metodiky a stanoviska MZ CR. Czech.
  10. Sprunger DT, Lambert SR, Hercinovic A, et al. American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel. Esotropia and Exotropia Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2023;130(3):P179-P221. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.11.002
  11. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines for the Management of Strabismus in Childhood. March 2012.
  12. Ocular cyclopentolate: A mini review concerning its benefits and risks. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. Micromedex Cyclopentolate. 2021;17:1021-1028.
  13. Contreras-Salinas H, Orozco-Ceja V, Romero-López MS, et al. Ocu- lar Cyclopentolate: A Mini Review Concerning Its Benefits and Risks. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:3753-3762. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S388982
  14. Zobanová A. Recommended procedure for eye examination for infants and children of pre-school age in regular outpatient practice. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2017;73(5-6):225-230.
  15. Goldstand S, Koslowe KC, Parush S. Vision, visual-information processing, and academic performance among seventh grade school children: a more significant relationship than we thought? Am J Occup Ther. 2005;59(4):377-389. doi: 10.5014/ajot.59.4.377
  16. Atkinson J, Nardini M, Anker S, et al. Refractive errors in infancy predict reduced performance on the movement assessment battery for children at 3 1/2 and 5 1/2 years. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47(4):243-251. doi: 10.1017/s0012162205000472
  17. Roch-Levecq AC, Brody BL, Thomas RG, Brown SI. Ametropia, preschoolers’ cognitive abilities, and effects of spectacle correction. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(2):252-258. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2007.36
  18. Menacker SJ. Visual function in children with developmental disabilities. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1993;40(3):659-674. doi: 10.1016/s0031-3955(16)38557-1
  19. Akinci A, Oner O, Bozkurt OH, et al. Refractive errors and ocular findings in children with intellectual disability: a controlled study. J AAPOS 2008;12(5):477-481. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.04.009
  20. Mojon-Azzi SM, Kunz A, Mojon DS. Strabismus and discrimination in children: are children with strabismus invited to fewer birthday parties? Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95 (4):473-776. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2010.185793
  21. Davidson S, Quinn GE. The impact of pediatric vision disorders in adulthood. Pediatrics. 2011;127(2):334-339. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1911
  22. Salt A, Sargent J. Common visual problems in children with disability. Arch Dis Child. 2014;99(12):1163-1168. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305267