ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Do static and dynamic pupillary parameters differ according to childhood, adulthood, and old age? A quantitative study in healthy volunteers.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic effect of sympathectomy in the treatment of localized hyperhidrosis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Dangerous Alarming Diameter Assessment (DADA Index) in Which the Ratio of Iris Surface/Pupil Surface Size Is More Reliable than Pupil Diameter Measurement in Comatose Patients After Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: An Experimental Rabbit Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of pupillary functions in adult vitamin D deficiency patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents.Journal of physiological anthropology · 2024Article
- Differences in the Pupillary Responses to Evening Light between Children and Adolescents.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the normative pupillometry values and mean pupil dilatation speed in healthy individuals in different age groups in our study. Methods: The study group included 180 eyes of 90 healthy volunteers in different age groups. Group 1 consisted of 30 participants between the ages of 6 and 18, group 2 consisted of 30 participants aged 19-40, and group 3 consisted of 30 participants aged 41-75. Scotopic, mesopic, photopic, and dynamic measurements were taken with automatic pupillometry of Sirius Topographer (CSO, Firenze, Italy). The mean pupil dilation speed at the 18 Results: Group 1 had a significantly larger pupil diameter than groups 2 and 3 in all static and dynamic parameters, and the mean pupil dilation speed was the highest among the groups (P < 0.001 for all static and dynamic parameters). In addition, group 2 had a significantly larger pupil diameter than group 3 (P < 0.001 for all static and dynamic parameters) and the mean pupil dilation speed was faster than group 3 (P = 0.027). Conclusion: We have presented the static and dynamic parameters and the mean speed of pupil dilatation at the 18
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.