ArticleInternational journal of applied & basic medical research
Interdevice Agreement between a Smartphone and a Commercial Pupillometer.
Article in International journal of applied & basic medical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- SmartPLR: a digital solution for AI-powered smartphone pupillometry.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Is quantitative pupillometry affected by ambient light? A prospective crossover study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Article
- Video-based pupillometry using Fourier Mellin image correlation.Scientific reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The reliability of dynamic pupillometry parameters varies from one pupillometer to another, making it difficult to standardize the values for any particular device. Hence, further studies are required to evaluate the agreement of various pupillometer devices and explore their utility in routine clinical settings. Aim: This study sought to evaluate the agreement between smartphone and commercial pupillometer measurements in routine clinical settings. Methods: The study included pupillary measurements obtained by a single investigator from 100 healthy participants (200 eyes) with each pupillometer. Pupillary measurements taken by a smartphone pupillometry application (reflex pupillary light reflex analyzer by Brightlamp [Indianapolis, IN, USA]) were compared with a commercial pupillometer (neurological pupil index-200, NeurOptics Inc., Irvine, USA). Results: The comparison of descriptive statistics revealed a statistically significant difference between the smartphone and commercial pupillometers for various parameters, including maximum diameter, minimum diameter, constriction velocity (CV), maximum CV, and dilatation velocity ( Conclusion: The measurements by smartphone pupillometry application were found to be unreliable, indicating that they may not be an ideal substitute for commercial pupillometers in their present form in the Indian population. Further studies with larger sample size as well as improvements in the processing and interpretation of the measurements by the software, are needed to determine its utility in routine clinical settings.
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.