Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2017 Jun 8;135(6):624–630. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1091

Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Atropine in Childhood Myopia

A Meta-analysis

Qianwen Gong 1, Mirosław Janowski 2,3, Mi Luo 4, Hong Wei 1,4, Bingjie Chen 1,4, Guoyuan Yang 1,4, Longqian Liu 1,4,✉
PMCID: PMC5710262  PMID: 28494063

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and adverse effects of various doses of atropine in the therapy for myopia among children.

Key Points

Question

Do the adverse effects and efficacy of topical atropine support its use in children with myopia, and if so, at what dose should it be administered?

Findings

This meta-analysis of 19 studies that included 3137 children found atropine to be effective in slowing progression of myopia; however, no difference in efficacy was identified between different doses of atropine within this range. Higher doses of atropine were associated with more adverse effects.

Meaning

Because adverse effects were less frequent at lower doses of atropine and higher doses were not more effective, this meta-analysis supports using atropine at lower doses (0.01%) to reduce progression of myopia.

Abstract

Importance

Some uncertainty about the clinical value and dosing of atropine for the treatment of myopia in children remains.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy vs the adverse effects of various doses of atropine in the therapy for myopia in children.

Data Sources

Data were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to April 30, 2016. The reference lists of published reviews and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for additional relevant studies. Key search terms included myopia, refractive errors, and atropine. Only studies published in English were included.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that enrolled patients younger than 18 years with myopia who received atropine in at least 1 treatment arm and that reported the annual rate of myopia progression and/or any adverse effects of atropine therapy were included in the analysis.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by Q, H, and I2 statistics, and a meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a difference in efficacy and the presence of adverse effects at different doses of atropine vs control conditions. The secondary outcomes included the differences in adverse effects between Asian and white patients.

Results

Nineteen unique studies involving 3137 unique children were included in the analysis. The weighted mean differences between the atropine and control groups in myopia progression were 0.50 diopters (D) per year (95% CI, 0.24-0.76 D per year) for low-dose atropine, 0.57 D per year (95% CI, 0.43-0.71 D per year) for moderate-dose atropine, and 0.62 D per year (95% CI, 0.45-0.79 D per year) for high-dose atropine (P < .001), which translated to a high effect size (Cohen d, 0.97, 1.76, and 1.94, respectively). All doses of atropine, therefore, were equally beneficial with respect to myopia progression (P = .15). High-dose atropine were associated with more adverse effects, such as the 43.1% incidence of photophobia compared with 6.3% for low-dose atropine and 17.8% for moderate-dose atropine (χ22 = 7.05; P = .03). In addition, differences in the incidence of adverse effects between Asian and white patients were not identified (χ21 = 0.81; P = .37 for photophobia).

Conclusions and Relevance

This meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of atropine is dose independent within this range, whereas the adverse effects are dose dependent.

Introduction

Myopia is a relatively prevalent and increasing public health concern, particularly in East Asia, where it has already reached a pandemic level. An estimated 2.5 billion people will be affected by myopia in 2020. The prevalence has been reported to be 80% or higher in the young adult population in certain Asian countries or areas, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Similarly, in the United States, the prevalence of myopia is 20% to 50% among the population older than 12 years. This silent epidemic should not be ignored. The worldwide prevalence of myopia and high myopia is estimated to increase substantially, affecting nearly 5 billion and 1 billion people, respectively, by 2050. In addition, the cost of uncorrected refractive error is a very real existing problem, affecting as many as 88% of children with myopia, and thus, the implications of increasing myopia prevalence worldwide are significant. Apart from the substantial socioeconomic cost, severe sight-threatening complications associated with high myopia substantially compromise quality of life. An excellent review by Flitcroft(p622) clearly demonstrates that no safe threshold for myopic refractive errors exists, which suggests that no such thing as “physiological myopia” exists. A recent study reported that axial lengths of 26 mm or greater and refractive errors of −6 diopters (D) or greater are significantly associated with an increased lifetime risk for visual impairment. Therefore, an effective treatment to slow or even stop myopia progression in young children is urgently needed. Researchers and clinicians have proposed approaches to treat myopia for many years. However, to date, no ideal approach has been identified as efficacious for the prevention and treatment of myopia with sufficient safety and clinical acceptability.

Atropine, a nonselective muscarinic antagonist, has been studied widely in recent years to prevent worsening of myopia in children. Although the exact mechanism and site of action of atropine are still unknown, different concentrations of atropine (low dose, 0.01%; moderate dose, >0.01% to <0.5%; and high dose, 0.5% to 1.0%) have been widely used topically as eyedrops, with great interest in Asian areas, especially in Taiwan and Singapore. Atropine was thought to have a dose-related efficacy but was also thought to be associated with significant adverse effects. Some studies have reported that 1.0% atropine can stop or even reverse myopia progression, but the treatment was associated with other vision-related adverse effects. In a recent 5-year study, 0.01% atropine was shown to be effective, with fewer vision-related adverse effects. Thus far, much uncertainty remains about the clinical use of atropine, such as dosing, safety concerns, and the generalizability of the application of atropine in different ethnic groups.

Previous systematic reviews have assessed the efficacy of atropine, but a quantitative assessment of the adverse effects was lacking. Because race and iris color are known factors that influence cycloplegia, the adverse effects of atropine in lightly pigmented eyes of white persons may be more severe. In this follow-up meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the overall efficacy of atropine in slowing myopia progression in children in the context of quantitative data about the adverse effects that accompany such treatment. We have also investigated whether there was a difference in the incidence of adverse effects between different ethnicities.

Methods

Data Sources and Literature Searches

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to yield relevant studies from their inception to April 30, 2016, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free words combined with myopia, refractive errors, and atropine. We also screened clinicaltrials.gov and the reference lists of published reviews to identify additional relevant studies. Only studies published in English were included.

Eligibility Criteria

We included comparative studies (ie, randomized clinical trials [RCTs], non-RCTs, and cohort studies). The studies were selected according to the following criteria: (1) participants were younger than 18 years and had myopia, (2) atropine was used in at least 1 treatment arm, and (3) the study reported at least 1 outcome of interest, including the annual rate of myopia progression and any adverse effects.

Data Collection and Quality Assessment

Two of us (Q.G. and M.L.) screened titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible articles independently and in duplicate, and then they checked the full text to determine the final inclusions. When more than 1 report used data from the same study, we included only the latest report to avoid duplicate counting of the data. For the included studies, both reviewers independently extracted data regarding study characteristics (author, study design, country or area, intervention and control, and length of follow-up), patient characteristics (sex, age, mean change in cycloplegic spherical equivalent, mean change in axial elongation, and number of adverse events), and outcomes of interest. Discrepancies were adjudicated by a third reviewer (L.L.)

We assessed the risk for bias of RCTs for the following 6 aspects according to the Cochrane Collaboration: allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of patients and clinicians, masking of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. For observational studies, we applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, which included 8 items within 3 domains to evaluate bias in patient selection, comparability, and outcome assessments. A study can be awarded a maximum of 1 star for each numbered item among the items that evaluate patient selection and outcome assessments. A maximum of 2 stars could be given for comparability, and the total scores ranged from 0 to 9 points. No case-control studies were included.

Statistical Analysis

Data analyses were performed using Review Manager (version 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration), STATA (version 12.0; StataCorp), and SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc) software. We conducted analyses for changes in different concentrations of atropine vs control conditions based on comparative studies. We calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CIs for different doses of atropine in refractive changes and axial elongation vs the control group, as well as the risk ratio for adverse effects between the atropine and control groups. The effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using the Cohen d formula. An effect size would be defined as small at 0.20 or greater, medium at 0.50 or greater, or large at 0.80 or greater, which means the treatment effect was low, moderate, or strong, respectively. The various concentrations of atropine were also correlated with the WMDs and adverse effects. The extent of heterogeneity was statistically quantified by Q, H, and I2 statistics across studies. We performed all the meta-analyses using a random-effects model if the Q statistic was significant.

A subanalysis was performed by evaluating the heterogeneity between different ethnicities (Asian vs white individuals). We performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding studies with significantly different characteristics. In addition, publication bias was addressed by a Begg rank correlation, an Egger regression, and a trim-and-fill method.

Results

The retrieval identified 720 articles, and ultimately, 19 unique studies constituted the data for analysis (Figure 1), including 9 RCTs and 10 cohort studies. A total of 3137 unique children younger than 18 years were included in this meta-analysis; 1814 were included in RCTs, and 1323 were included in cohort studies. In addition, 268 Asian and 201 white participants underwent separate analysis in the 1.0% atropine group for ethnic comparison. The study characteristics are listed in the Table. Low-dose atropine was investigated in 2 studies, moderate-dose atropine in 7 studies, and high-dose atropine in 13 studies, together resulting in 22 experimental groups in 19 studies. Ten studies were conducted in Taiwan, 3 in the United States, 3 in Singapore, 2 in Mainland China, and 1 in Hong Kong. Among the studies, Liang et al and Chia et al compared different doses of atropine groups without a control group that did not receive atropine. Lin et al conducted a self-control study and compared interocular imbalance. The other studies included atropine vs a control group with no administration of atropine.

Figure 1. PRISM Flow Diagram of the Literature Search Process.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

RCTs indicate randomized clinical trials.

Table. Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Meta-analysis.

Source Study Design Country/Area Follow-up, mo Atropine Dose, % Age, y Baseline Refraction, Diopter
Yen et al, 1989 RCT Taiwan 12 1.0 6-14 Mean (SD), −1.52 (0.92)
Shih et al, 1999 RCT Taiwan 24 0.5. 0.25, 0.1 6-13 Mean (SD), −4.41 (1.47)
Shih et al, 2001 RCT Taiwan 18 0.5 6-13 Mean (SD), −3.28 (0.13)
Hsiao et al, 2005 RCT Taiwan 18 0.5 6-13 Mean, −3.37
Chua et al, 2006 RCT Singapore 24 1.0 6-12 Mean (SD), −3.36 (1.38)
Liang et al, 2008 RCT Taiwan 6 0.25, 0.5 6-15 Range, −0.50 or less
Chia et al, 2012 RCT Singapore 24 0.5, 0.1, 0.01 6-12 Range, −2.00 or less
Kumaran et al, 2015 RCT Singapore 36 1.0 6-12 Mean, −3.36
Yi et al, 2015 RCT China 12 1.0 7-12 Mean (SD), −1.23 (0.32)
Brodstein et al, 1984 Cohort United States 33 1.0 8-15 Not reported
Chou et al, 1997 Cohort Taiwan 38 0.5 7-14 Range, −6.00 or less
Kennedy et al, 2000 Cohort United States 144 1.0 6-15 Mean, −1.49
Lee et al, 2006 Cohort Taiwan 20 0.05 6-12 Mean (SD), −1.58 (1.37)
Fan et al, 2007 Cohort Hong Kong 12 1.0 5-10 Mean (SD), −5.18 (2.05)
Fang et al, 2010 Cohort Taiwan 18 0.025 6-12 Mean (SD), −0.31 (0.45)
Wu et al, 2011 Cohort Taiwan 54 0.05 6-12 Mean (SD), −2.45 (1.63)
Lin et al, 2014 Cohort Taiwan 36 0.125 7-17 Mean (SD), −4.00 (1.75)
Clark and Clark, 2015 Cohort United States 13 0.01 6-15 Mean (SD), −2.00 (1.60)
Lin et al, 2013 Cohort China 11.5 1.0 8-15 Mean (SD), −1.92 (0.91)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: RCT, randomized clinical trial.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk for bias for the included RCTs is presented in eTable 1 in the Supplement. The quality of the included cohort studies was generally high according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale items (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Refraction

Of the atropine vs control group comparison, 1 study reported data on low-dose atropine; 5 studies, on moderate-dose atropine; and 11 studies, on high-dose atropine. Seven RCTs (n = 1349) and 9 cohort studies (n = 1308) reported data on refraction. We combined RCT and cohort studies to provide larger samples of the different doses because we found no difference between RCTs and cohort studies (P = .30) (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). The pooled data showed significantly less progression in refraction for low-dose (WMD, 0.50 D per year; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76 D per year; P < .001), moderate-dose (WMD, 0.57 D per year; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71 D per year; P < .001), and high-dose (WMD, 0.62 D per year; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79 D per year; P < .001) atropine groups than control groups after therapy (Figure 2). The ES pooling revealed a large treatment effect in the outcome of interest in low-dose (ES, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.43-1.5; P < .001), moderate-dose (ES, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.44-2.07; P < .001), and high-dose (ES, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.22-2.65; P < .001) atropine groups (Figure 2). No statistically significant difference in changes of refraction among various doses of atropine was observed within this range (χ22 = 3.74; P = .15 for interaction; I2 = 46.5%) (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). We observed no correlation between a dose and treatment effect (r = 0.17; P = .51).

Figure 2. Forest Plots of the Mean Difference in Refraction Between the Experimental and Control Groups at Different Doses of Atropine and the Overall Estimates of the Effect of Atropine on Refraction.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Vertical interrupted line denotes where the positive effect begins to be large (small, ≥0.20; medium, ≥0.50; and large, ≥0.80). D indicates diopter.

In addition, the ES pooling revealed a large treatment effect in the outcome of interest for RCTs (ES, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.46-3.88) and cohort studies (ES, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.61-1.98). A significant heterogeneity and publication bias was found in the treatment effects for RCTs and no publication bias in cohort studies (eTable 3 in the Supplement). In addition, no significant difference was found in 0.01% and 1.0% atropine treatment between Asian and white individuals (P = .25 and P = .83).

Axial Elongation

Five studies reported changes in axial length between the high-dose atropine and control groups. The study by Lin et al was not included because orthokeratology was used as the control. We also combined RCTs and cohort studies to obtain the results because of the limited number of studies. The analyses showed that the WMD in changes of axial elongation between the atropine groups and control groups was −0.27 mm (95% CI, −0.36 to −0.17 mm; P < .001) in high-dose studies (Figure 3). The ES pooling for the high-dose studies was 3.05 (95% CI, 1.52-4.57; P < .001) (Figure 3). The ES pooling was 3.67 (95% CI, 1.85-5.50; P < .001) in RCTs and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.08-1.27) in cohort studies.

Figure 3. Forest Plot and the Overall Estimates of the Effect of Atropine on Axial Length.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Vertical interrupted line denotes where the positive effect begins to be large (small, ≥0.20; medium, ≥0.50; and large, ≥0.80).

Adverse Effects

All atropine arms in RCTs and cohort studies were combined to estimate the difference in the incidence of adverse effects among various doses of atropine (eFigure 3 in the Supplement). In addition, the incidence of adverse effects reported in 12 studies is summarized in eTable 4 in the Supplement. In total, 308 adverse effect events were reported in 2425 patients in the atropine groups from all included studies, with an incidence of 12.7%. Of those, the most common were photophobia (205 of 816 [25.1%]), followed by poor near visual acuity (48 of 636 [7.5%]), and allergy (20 of 679 [2.9%]). Other adverse effects included headache, chalazion, systemic effects, and those that occurred in fewer than 1% of the patients. Only 2 events of photophobia among 721 patients were reported in the control groups. Therefore, the incidence of any adverse event was significantly greater in the atropine compared with the control groups (P < .001). In addition, data for the RCTs and cohort studies were pooled, because of the limited number of studies, to estimate the adverse effects of 1.0% atropine in Asian and white individuals (eFigure 4 in the Supplement).

Photophobia

The incidence of photophobia with low-dose atropine was 6.3% (95% CI, 0.1%-17.9%); with moderate-dose atropine, 17.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-33.9%); and with high-dose atropine, 43.1% (95% CI, 16.2%-71.7%), revealing an increase in the rate of this adverse effect with dose escalation (χ22 = 7.05; P = .03). The incidence of photophobia was statistically significant but only moderately correlated with the dose of atropine (r = 0.56; P = .03). The rates of photophobia were 61.5% (95% CI, 12.0%-111.0%) in Asian and 38.4% (95% CI, 32.0%-45.0%) in white participants (χ21 = 0.81; P = .37 for interaction).

Poor Near Visual Acuity

The incidence of poor near visual acuity for low-dose atropine was 2.3% (95% CI, 0.1%-5.5%); for moderate-dose atropine, 11.9% (95% CI, 7.0%-18.5%); and for high-dose atropine, 11.6% (95% CI, 0.8%-27.3%) (χ22 = 9.98; P = .007 for interaction). The rates of poor near visual acuity were 4.9% (95% CI, −4.0% to 14.0%) in Asian and 10.7% (95% CI, 6.0%-15.0%) in white individuals (χ21 = 1.36; P = .24 for interaction).

Allergy

The incidence of allergy for moderate-dose atropine was 2.9% (95% CI, 0.1%-6.9%); for high-dose atropine, 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%- 6.2%) (χ21 = 0.24; P = .62). The rates of allergy were 3.0% (95% CI, 0%-6.0%) in Asian and 3.7% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%) in white individuals (χ21 = 0.11; P = .74 for interaction).

Other Adverse Effects

The incidence of other adverse effects for low-dose atropine was 4.8% (95% CI, 1.0%-10.6%); for moderate-dose atropine, 11% (95% CI, 6.5%-16.4%); and for high-dose atropine, 11.2% (95% CI, 3.3%-21.5%) (χ22 = 3.57; P = .17 for interaction). The rates of other adverse events (ie, chalazion and systemic effects) were 3.3% (95% CI, −3.0% to 10.0%) in Asian and 12.2% (95% CI, 8.0%-17.0%) in white individuals (χ21 = 5.10; P = .02 for interaction).

Discussion

Our meta-analysis confirms that atropine is effective in slowing the progression of myopia in children. No difference was found between various doses of atropine within this range. This finding is in contrast to a 2011 meta-analysis that showed better efficacy at higher doses, but that analysis included only 6 studies available at that time. In addition, those authors evaluated only the moderate and high doses of atropine, without the low dose. The next meta-analysis published 3 years later included 11 studies and 1815 children and showed a positive effect of atropine, but no stratification by dose or quantification of adverse effects was performed and the 0.01% dose was not included.

In 2016, a network meta-analysis was published that showed that pharmacological intervention, such as atropine, is most effective in slowing myopia progression, and no dose dependence was observed, which was in contrast to previous analyses and was probably related to the further accumulation of clinical trials. Seven studies were included that examined all the high, moderate, and low doses of atropine; however, in the meta-analysis, no quantitative assessment of adverse effects was performed. Our meta-analysis also did not find differences in efficacy among doses within this range.

Our study quantifies adverse effects and has been instrumental in forming practical guidelines for the administration of atropine, including dosing. We have shown that increasing the dose of atropine leads to a growing number of adverse effects. Our analysis also showed that differences in the incidence of adverse effects between Asian and white patients were not identified, but only 1.0% atropine was analyzed because of limited studies on other doses in white patients.

A previous study reported that a lighter iris color in Europeans is generally considered to be a barrier for the use of atropine in the Western world, and the rate of adverse effects may be higher. The study did not identify a difference in photophobia, poor near visual acuity, or allergy between Asian and white children for 0.5% atropine. The study focused on Europeans, with 53 European and 13 Asian patients. We believe there are 2 reasons for the findings. One is that white patients were involved in only 1 study, and thus no pooled data could be gathered; the other is that 1 study involving Asian patients was published in 1989, and all patients reported photophobia, which may be because no strategies existed to alleviate the symptom at that time.

Polling et al reported that, overall, European and Asian children reported a similar prevalence of photophobia and reading problems. However, Asian children, in general, suggest they were able to cope with the adverse effects more easily, and 63.3% of the European children experienced undiminished adverse effects compared with 20% of the Asian children. Therefore, Asian children adapted very quickly.

As Huang et al suggested, clinical decisions about any intervention require information about efficacy, short- vs long-term benefits, and the risks for adverse effects. Therefore, an additional examination of the adverse effects of atropine is important.

No difference in the efficacy of atropine was identified across various doses within this range, but the lowest dose, 0.01%, was administered in only 2 studies. Although we recommend using the lowest dose of atropine (0.01%) for therapy, more clinical trials with this dose are needed, and a crossover design would be interesting, with the weakest response from low-dose atropine to the high-dose of atropine, to test whether such a potential clinical scenario might be effective. If adverse effects occur, the discontinuation of the therapy could be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on how debilitating it is to patients, and this could serve as a basis for the measurement of the rebound effect.

Although the topical application of atropine slows the progression of myopia, the combined approaches might be necessary to better prevent the progression of myopia. Outdoor activities, orthokeratology, and bifocals have been shown to be capable of slowing the progression of myopia, and a recent study also raised the possibility of using stem cells to prevent myopia progression.

Limitations

The present study has some limitations. First, because not enough studies examined each atropine concentration, different types of studies were combined in this meta-analysis to investigate the overall effects of different doses, which might be a source of additional heterogeneity. Second, the reports on adverse effects in the included studies were not comprehensive, and some of the differences in rates of symptoms seem quite large, which may have limited a more in-depth analysis. Third, the efficacy of atropine was reported during the duration of the trials; however, the cessation of atropine therapy has been found to lead to a rebound effect and faster progression of myopia, and this very important aspect was not studied in any of the investigated studies. Chia et al found that 0.01% atropine has a lesser rebound effect than 0.5% and 0.1% atropine 1 year after stopping the administration of atropine. Because the 0.01% atropine dose is as effective as higher doses for slowing the progression of myopia, with fewer adverse effects and rebound effects, use of 0.01% atropine should be advocated. Fourth, the poor near visual acuity induced by high-dose atropine may also deter children from close work and thus slow the progression of myopia. This factor was also not controlled for in any of the studies. Fifth, we did not evaluate the axial length across various doses of atropine because such measurements were available only for high-dose atropine groups.

Conclusions

The efficacy of atropine is dose independent, whereas the adverse effects are dose dependent. The low dose of atropine seems to herald a new therapeutic scenario that decreases the adverse effects and seems to decrease the rebound effects. Therefore, this dose should be investigated further, along with the effects of encouraging more outside time for children. In addition, pharmaceutical companies could produce 0.01% atropine commercially to aid further global research.

Supplement.

eFigure 1. Forest Graph of the Effect of Atropine on Slowing Myopia

eFigure 2. Forest Graph of the Effect of Different Doses of Atropine on Slowing Myopia

eFigure 3. Forest Plots and Incidence of Adverse Effects

eFigure 4. The Adverse Effects of 1.0% Atropine in Asian and White Patients

eTable 1. Summary of Risk of Bias and Level of Evidence of the RCTs According to the Cochrane Collaboration Tool

eTable 2. Quality Assessment of Cohort Studies Included in the Meta-analysis Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale

eTable 3. Homogeneity Analysis and Publication Bias

eTable 4. The Adverse Events for Atropine Groups vs Controls During the Treatment of Myopia in Children

Click here for additional data file. (562.5KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Dolgin E. The myopia boom. Nature. 2015;519(7543):276-278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM. Myopia. Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1739-1748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fan DS, Lam DS, Lam RF, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and progression of myopia of school children in Hong Kong. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(4):1071-1075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lin LL, Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ. Prevalence of myopia in Taiwanese schoolchildren: 1983 to 2000. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004;33(1):27-33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dirani M, Chan YH, Gazzard G, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in Singaporean Chinese children: the Strabismus, Amblyopia, and Refractive Error in Young Singaporean Children (STARS) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(3):1348-1355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kempen JH, Mitchell P, Lee KE, et al. ; Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group . The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):495-505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chua J, Wong TY. Myopia—the silent epidemic that should not be ignored. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(12):1363-1364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036-1042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fricke TR, Holden BA, Wilson DA, et al. Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(10):728-738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saw SM, Gazzard G, Shih-Yen EC, Chua WH. Myopia and associated pathological complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005;25(5):381-391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Flitcroft DI. The complex interactions of retinal, optical and environmental factors in myopia aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2012;31(6):622-660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tideman JW, Snabel MC, Tedja MS, et al. Association of axial length with risk of uncorrectable visual impairment for Europeans with myopia. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(12):1355-1363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Walline JJ. Myopia control: a review. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(1):3-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shih KC, Chan TC, Ng AL, et al. Use of atropine for prevention of childhood myopia progression in clinical practice. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(1):16-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chia A, Lu QS, Tan D. Five-year clinical trial on atropine for the treatment of myopia 2: myopia control with atropine 0.01% eyedrops. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(2):391-399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lin L, Lan W, Liao Y, Zhao F, Chen C, Yang Z. Treatment outcomes of myopic anisometropia with 1% atropine: a pilot study. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(12):1486-1492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yi S, Huang Y, Yu SZ, Chen XJ, Yi H, Zeng XL. Therapeutic effect of atropine 1% in children with low myopia. J AAPOS. 2015;19(5):426-429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Song YY, Wang H, Wang BS, Qi H, Rong ZX, Chen HZ. Atropine in ameliorating the progression of myopia in children with mild to moderate myopia: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011;27(4):361-368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li SM, Wu SS, Kang MT, et al. Atropine slows myopia progression more in Asian than white children by meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91(3):342-350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Manny RE, Hussein M, Scheiman M, Kurtz D, Niemann K, Zinzer K; COMET Study Group . Tropicamide (1%): an effective cycloplegic agent for myopic children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(8):1728-1735. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Janowski M, Walczak P, Date I. Intravenous route of cell delivery for treatment of neurological disorders: a meta-analysis of preclinical results. Stem Cells Dev. 2010;19(1):5-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Durlak JA. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(9):917-928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yen MY, Liu JH, Kao SC, Shiao CH. Comparison of the effect of atropine and cyclopentolate on myopia. Ann Ophthalmol. 1989;21(5):180-182, 187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shih YF, Chen CH, Chou AC, Ho TC, Lin LL, Hung PT. Effects of different concentrations of atropine on controlling myopia in myopic children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1999;15(1):85-90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ, Chang CW, Hung PT, Lin LL. An intervention trial on efficacy of atropine and multi-focal glasses in controlling myopic progression. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79(3):233-236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hsiao CK, Tsai MY, Chen HM. Inference of nested variance components in a longitudinal myopia intervention trial. Stat Med. 2005;24(21):3251-3267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chua WH, Balakrishnan V, Chan YH, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12):2285-2291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liang CK, Ho TY, Li TC, et al. A combined therapy using stimulating auricular acupoints enhances lower-level atropine eyedrops when used for myopia control in school-aged children evaluated by a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. Complement Ther Med. 2008;16(6):305-310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chia A, Chua WH, Cheung YB, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: safety and efficacy of 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01% doses (Atropine for the Treatment of Myopia 2). Ophthalmology. 2012;119(2):347-354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kumaran A, Htoon HM, Tan D, Chia A. Analysis of changes in refraction and biometry of atropine- and placebo-treated eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(9):5650-5655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brodstein RS, Brodstein DE, Olson RJ, Hunt SC, Williams RR. The treatment of myopia with atropine and bifocals: a long-term prospective study. Ophthalmology. 1984;91(11):1373-1379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chou AC, Shih YF, Ho TC, Lin LL. The effectiveness of 0.5% atropine in controlling high myopia in children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1997;13(1):61-67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kennedy RH, Dyer JA, Kennedy MA, et al. Reducing the progression of myopia with atropine: a long term cohort study of Olmsted County students. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q. 2000;15(3)(suppl):281-304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lee JJ, Fang PC, Yang IH, et al. Prevention of myopia progression with 0.05% atropine solution. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2006;22(1):41-46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fan DS, Lam DS, Chan CK, Fan AH, Cheung EY, Rao SK. Topical atropine in retarding myopic progression and axial length growth in children with moderate to severe myopia: a pilot study. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2007;51(1):27-33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fang PC, Chung MY, Yu HJ, Wu PC. Prevention of myopia onset with 0.025% atropine in premyopic children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2010;26(4):341-345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wu PC, Yang YH, Fang PC. The long-term results of using low-concentration atropine eye drops for controlling myopia progression in schoolchildren. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011;27(5):461-466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lin HJ, Wan L, Tsai FJ, et al. Overnight orthokeratology is comparable with atropine in controlling myopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014;14:40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Clark TY, Clark RA. Atropine 0.01% eyedrops significantly reduce the progression of childhood myopia. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(9):541-545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69-71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Huang J, Wen D, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy comparison of 16 interventions for myopia control in children: a network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(4):697-708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Polling JR, Kok RG, Tideman JW, Meskat B, Klaver CC. Effectiveness study of atropine for progressive myopia in Europeans. Eye (Lond). 2016;30(7):998-1004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.He M, Xiang F, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among children in China: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1142-1148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zadnik K, Mutti DO. Who says there’s nothing new under the sun? Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92(11):e392-e393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, et al. Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(8):1279-1285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ramamurthy D, Lin Chua SY, Saw SM. A review of environmental risk factors for myopia during early life, childhood and adolescence. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98(6):497-506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lu B, Congdon N, Liu X, et al. Associations between near work, outdoor activity, and myopia among adolescent students in rural China: the Xichang Pediatric Refractive Error Study report No. 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):769-775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Si JK, Tang K, Bi HS, Guo DD, Guo JG, Wang XR. Orthokeratology for myopia control: a meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92(3):252-257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Cheng D, Woo GC, Drobe B, Schmid KL. Effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopia progression in children: three-year results of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(3):258-264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Janowski M, Bulte JW, Handa JT, Rini D, Walczak P. Concise review: using stem cells to prevent the progression of myopia—a concept. Stem Cells. 2015;33(7):2104-2113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tong L, Huang XL, Koh AL, Zhang X, Tan DT, Chua WH. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: effect on myopia progression after cessation of atropine. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(3):572-579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Chia A, Chua WH, Wen L, Fong A, Goon YY, Tan D. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: changes after stopping atropine 0.01%, 0.1% and 0.5%. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(2):451-457.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement.

eFigure 1. Forest Graph of the Effect of Atropine on Slowing Myopia

eFigure 2. Forest Graph of the Effect of Different Doses of Atropine on Slowing Myopia

eFigure 3. Forest Plots and Incidence of Adverse Effects

eFigure 4. The Adverse Effects of 1.0% Atropine in Asian and White Patients

eTable 1. Summary of Risk of Bias and Level of Evidence of the RCTs According to the Cochrane Collaboration Tool

eTable 2. Quality Assessment of Cohort Studies Included in the Meta-analysis Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale

eTable 3. Homogeneity Analysis and Publication Bias

eTable 4. The Adverse Events for Atropine Groups vs Controls During the Treatment of Myopia in Children

Click here for additional data file. (562.5KB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES