Response: Cycloplegia in refraction: age and cycloplegics

Paul G. Sanfilippo, Byoung Sun Chu, Olivia Bigault, Lisa S. Kearns, Mei Ying Boon, Terri L. Young, Christopher J. Hammond, Alex W. Hewitt, David A. Mackey

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter


We appreciate the letter by Galvis et al. (2016) regarding our recent publication investigating age cut‐offs for cycloplegic refraction in teenagers and young adults. Indeed, we recognize that the use of two different cycloplegic agents introduces an inconsistency into our methodology in measuring cycloplegic effect. However, the decision to use tropicamide in older individuals was made after considering both the available evidence and pragmatic factors affecting our study population.

Many of our older subjects graciously gave off their time to participate in the study during work periods, and in these cases, we felt the period of cycloplegic recovery (up to 24 hours) was inordinate. In the authors' previous experience in similar studies, this slow recovery has resulted in high rates of loss to follow‐up. The more desirable pharmacokinetic properties (and safer profile) of tropicamide make this an easier agent to use with the working individual.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)373-373
Number of pages1
JournalActa Ophthalmologica
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2016
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Response: Cycloplegia in refraction: age and cycloplegics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this