ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2025
A rapid pupillometry protocol for clinical use: effect of age and test-retest repeatability.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePupillometry is most commonly performed in laboratory settings using specialized, non-portable instruments that require lengthy test protocols. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a rapid, clinically-applicable pupillometry protocol using a commercially available, portable, handheld instrument.
methodsThirty-seven healthy individuals (ages 21-61 years) participated in three experiments. In each experiment, the pupillary light reflex (PLR) was elicited by full-field, 500 ms chromatic flashes (470 nm and 621 nm; 12,000 Td). Experiment I evaluated the minimum dark adaptation (DA) time needed to achieve maximum PLRs. Experiment II determined the effect of age. Experiment III estimated PLR test-retest repeatability. For all experiments, baseline pupil size (BL; 1 s before flash onset), maximum pupil constriction (MPC) following the flash, and post-illumination pupillary response (PIPR; median size 6-8 s after flash offset) were quantified.
resultsExperiment I showed that from 1 to 3 min of DA, BL and MPC increased slightly (0.27 mm and 5%, respectively), whereas the PIPR increased considerably (17%). The responses did not change appreciably after 3 min, therefore a 3 min DA period was used for Experiments II and III. Experiment II showed a trend for BL and MPC to decrease with age, but correlations with age were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). PIPR was independent of age (r = - 0.01; p = 0.96). Experiment III showed test-retest repeatability of approximately 1 mm for BL, and 10% for MPC and PIPR, indicating good repeatability.
conclusionThe proposed approach is useful for measuring the MPC and PIPR across a broad range of ages and baseline pupil sizes. Given the device portability and short test duration (approximately 5 min including DA), this approach has promising clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.