SynthesisMedicine2025
Performance of the quantitative pupillary light reflex and neurological pupil index for predicting neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of two automated pupillometry indices in patients with acute brain injury: the prospective multicentre LYNX cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Observational
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe performance of quantitative pupillary light reflex (qPLR) and the neurological pupil index (NPi) was used to predict neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest (CA) patients.
methodsEligible studies on the ability of the qPLR and NPi to predict neurological outcomes in CA patients were searched from the PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases until July 2023. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI), area under the curve, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were analyzed via Stata 14.0 software.
resultsTwelve studies involving 1530 CA patients (968 in the qPLR study and 1025 in the NPi study) satisfied the inclusion criteria. qPLR (OR: 24.50, 95% CI: 13.08-45.86%, P < .001) and NPi (OR: 15.55, 95% CI: 7.92-30.55%, P < .001) were significantly associated with neurological outcome. The pooled area under the curves of the qPLR and NPi for predicting neurological outcome were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92%) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.70%), respectively. The pooled results were robust according to the sensitivity analysis. The funnel plots for qPLR (P = .94) and NPi (P = .10) did not reveal any publication bias.
conclusionCompared with the NPi, the qPLR has greater diagnostic accuracy in predicting favorable neurologic outcomes.
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.