Comparative Analysis of Cycloplegic and Non-Cycloplegic Refraction in Children and Adolescents: Implications for Accurate Assessment of Refractive Errors

Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of cycloplegic (CR) versus non-cycloplegic refraction (NCR) methods in detecting refractive errors among children and adolescents. Methods: Electronic data from pediatric ophthalmology clinics at the University Hospital “Sveti Duh”; Zagreb, Croatia, from January 2008 to July 2023, were analyzed. Comprehensive eye examinations, including Logarithmic Visual Acuity tests, subjective refraction, cycloplegic retinoscopy, slit lamp, and fundus examinations, were conducted. Results: The dataset included 1075 individuals, with 180 undergoing NCR and 895 undergoing CR. In premyopes, the NCR group had a longer follow-up (5.04 vs. 3.45 years; p < 0.001) with similar SE progression. In low myopia, NCR showed more negative first visit SE (−1.86 D vs. −1.35 D; p < 0.001) and faster progression (p = 0.01). In high myopia, follow-up was longer in NCR (5.08 vs. 2.08 years; p = 0.03) with no other significant differences. SE progression was highest in 4–6-year-olds and significantly faster in NCR (−0.61 vs. −0.40 D/year; p = 0.05). Conclusions: Cycloplegic refraction is essential for accurately assessing refractive status, especially in cases of low myopia, as it prevents misclassification and ensures precise evaluation in children and adolescents, thereby facilitating the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of refractive errors.