ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2016
Assessment of pupillary light reflex using a smartphone application.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A haploscope based binocular pupillometer system to quantify the dynamics of direct and consensual Pupillary Light Reflex.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- SmartPLR: a digital solution for AI-powered smartphone pupillometry.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Video-based pupillometry using Fourier Mellin image correlation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Improvement of Presbyopia, Dry Eye, Intraocular Pressure, and Near Vision Through Cassiae Tea Consumption.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Effects of brightness variations on a smartphone-based version of Radner reading charts.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Smartphone Pupillometry and Machine Learning for Detection of Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Cohort Study.JMIR neurotechnology · 2024Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Interpupillary Distance Measurement Techniques Evaluation in Modern Times: From Rulers to Apps.Clinical optometry · 2024Article
- Eye reactions under the influence of drugs of abuse as measured by smartphones: a controlled clinical study in healthy volunteers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Pilot Study of Smartphone Infrared Pupillography and Pupillometry.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Interdevice Agreement between a Smartphone and a Commercial Pupillometer.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In unconscious patients, pupillary light reflex is an indicator of brain damage. In the current study, a smartphone application was developed for the purpose of measuring pupillary light reflex with an aim to determine the agreement between pupillary light reflex measurements using a smartphone application (APP) and a penlight (PEN). The APP acquires five sequential photographs using the camera flash in order to stimulate the pupil. The initial image is captured prior to the flash, and the subsequent image is obtained while the flash is on. The remaining three images are captured whilst the flash is off. Pupillary right reflex was assessed in 30 healthy subjects using a PEN. After 10 min, the examiners inspected the images of light reflex acquired from the same subjects using the APP, and completed the corresponding questionnaire containing details of pupil size and degree of response. Agreement between the two assessment methods was determined by calculating bias, limits of agreement, and the intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient. A statistically significant difference was not observed between the two methods regarding pupil size and degree of response. Bias was 0.1 mm and limits of agreement were ±1.5 mm, as compared with PEN. ICC was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.96). Therefore, it may be concluded that the results of pupillary light reflex assessed by PEN and APP display no significant difference. Furthermore, the APP provides advantages such as portability, objectivity and the possibility of being used as objective medical evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.