Evidence mapPaperPMID 38802485Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2024

Basics, benefits, and pitfalls of pupillometers assessing visual function.

Manon Philibert, Dan Milea

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Manon PhilibertRothschild Foundation Hospital, Paris, France.
Dan MileaRothschild Foundation Hospital, Paris, France. Visual.neurosciences@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6388-8639

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous commercially and non-commercially available pupillometers are nowadays able to assess various biological functions in humans, by evaluating pupils' dynamics in response to specific stimuli. However, the use of pupillometers for ophthalmic afferent evaluations (i.e., photoreceptoral responses) in real-world settings is relatively limited. Recent scientific and technological advances, coupled with artificial intelligence methods have improved the performance of such devices to objectively detect, quantify, and classify functional disturbances of the retina and the optic nerve. This review aims to summarize the scientific principles, indications, outcomes, and current limitations of pupillometry used for evaluation of afferent pathways in ophthalmic clinical settings.

Indexed as

PupilDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalHumansReflex, PupillaryVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID38802485
PMCPMC11306737

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.