Observational studyJournal of anesthesia2024
Video versus ultrasound pupillometry for detecting increased pupillary diameters due to nociceptive stimuli: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of automated ultrasound pupillometry assessment vs. infrared pupillary in critically ill patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeUltrasound pupillometry (UP) is a potential alternative to video pupillometry (VP) for assessing changes in patients' pupillary diameter (ΔPD) due to surgical nociception, but the reproducibility of UP and VP has been unclear. We evaluated the reproducibility of nociceptive ΔPD measured with both methods. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThis prospective observational trial with 15 healthy volunteers aged ≥ 18 years was conducted at a Japanese teaching hospital. The ΔPD due to tetanic stimuli randomly applied at 10-60 mA was measured with VP and UP. The primary outcome was the correlation between the ΔPD measured with VP and that measured with UP. The secondary outcome was the agreement between the methods. We also evaluated ΔPD pattern changes due to the raised pain intensity in each method.
resultsThe noxious ΔPD values of UP were weakly but significantly correlated with those of VP (Spearman's ρ = 0.38, p < 0.001). A significant constant error was identified between the two measurements (Bland-Altman: mean of the difference in ΔPD (VP - UP), - 0.4 [95% CI: - 0.52 to - 0.28, p < 0.001], generalized estimating equation: a beta estimator of ΔPD: 0.41, [95% CI: 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001]). The ΔPD pattern changes due to the raised tetanic stimuli were almost the same in the two methods.
conclusionDue to the significant constant error, we consider the reproducibility of the measured ΔPD between UP and VP moderate. Trial registry number UMIN 000047145. Prior to the subjects' enrollment, the trial was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (Principal investigator: Mao Konno, Date of registration: 3.11.2022). https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000053778 .
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.