Search

Purpose: To compare the cost and effectiveness of three cycloplegic agents among Nigerian children., Methods: Two hundred thirty-three children aged 4 to 15 years attending outpatient eye clinics in Nigeria were randomized to (1) 1% cyclopentolate, (2) 1% cyclopentolate and 0.5% tropicamide, or (3) 1% atropine drops in each eye (instilled at home over 3 days). Ten children were lost to follow-up, nine from the atropine group. An optometrist measured the residual accommodation (primary outcome), dilated pupil size, pupil response to light, and self-reported side effects (secondary outcomes). Caregivers were interviewed about costs incurred due to cycloplegia (primary outcome). The incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost divided by the difference in effectiveness comparing two agents. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ICERs were estimated through bootstrapping., Results: The atropine group had significantly lower mean residual accommodation (0.04 +/- 0.01 D [SE]), than the combined regimen (0.36 +/- 0.05 D) and cyclopentolate (0.63 +/- 0.06 D) groups (P < 0.001). Atropine and the combined regimen produced better results for negative response to light and dilated pupil size than cyclopentolate. Atropine was more expensive, but also more effective, than the other agents. The ICER comparing atropine to the combined regimen was 1.81 (95% CI = -6.31-15.35) and compared to cyclopentolate was 0.59 (95% CI = -3.47-5.47). The combined regimen was both more effective and less expensive than cyclopentolate alone., Conclusions: A combination of cyclopentolate and tropicamide should become the recommended agent for routine cycloplegic refraction in African children. The combined regimen was more effective than cyclopentolate, but not more expensive, and was preferable to atropine, since it incurred fewer losses to follow-up.

Background: Although the benefits of vision screening seem intuitive, the value of such programmes in junior and senior schools has been questioned. In addition to this there exists a lack of clarity regarding the optimum age, and frequency at which to carry out screening., Objectives: The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of vision screening programmes carried out in schools in reducing the prevalence of undetected, correctable visual acuity deficits due to refractive error in school-age children., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2004) and EMBASE (1980 to August 2004). No language or date restrictions were placed on these searches. To date it has not been possible to carry out any manual searches but it is hoped to include these in a future update., Selection Criteria: We planned to include randomised controlled trials including randomised cluster controlled trials., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed study abstracts identified by the electronic searches. No trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria., Main Results: As no trials were identified, no formal analysis was performed. A narrative synthesis of other retrieved studies was undertaken in order to explain current practice., Authors' Conclusions: At present there are no robust trials available that allow the benefits of school vision screening to be measured. The disadvantage of attending school with a visual acuity deficit also needs to be quantified. The impact of a screening programme will depend on the geographical, and socio-economic setting in which it is conducted. There is therefore clearly a need for well planned randomised controlled trials, in various settings, to be undertaken so that the potential benefits and harms of vision screening can be measured.