ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Evaluation of pupillary functions in adult vitamin D deficiency patients.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Dynamic pupillometry in patients with visible optic disc drusen: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the pupillary dynamics in patients with serum vitamin D (25(OH)-D) levels below normal and compared with healthy controls.
methodsThis study included 132 patients and 76 healthy controls. Serum 25(OH)-D concentrations within the range of 10 to 30 ng/mL were classified as vitamin D insufficiency (VDI, Group 1), while those at or below 10 ng/mL were categorized as vitamin D deficiency (VDD, Group 2). The static phase of pupillometry, including scotopic, mesopic, and photopic pupil diameters, was evaluated. Additionally, in the dynamic phase of pupillometric evaluation, pupil dilation velocity (mm/sec) was calculated. These values were compared between patient and control groups.
resultsIn static pupil diameters, only photopic pupil diameters were significantly different between Groups 1 and 2 compared to the control group (p = 0.012 and p = 0.008, respectively). In dynamic measurements, the pupil diameter values showed a statistically significant difference between the patient and control groups (p = 0.003). In intragroup comparison, the mean pupil diameter was 3.42 ± 0.81 mm in group 1 and 3.94 ± 0.96 mm in group 2 (p = 0.029). Mean pupil dilation velocity was significantly slower in the patient group (p < 0.001). In intragroup comparison, the mean pupil dilation velocity was 0.162 ± 0.049 mm/sec in group 1 and 0.088 ± 0.032 mm/sec in group 2 (p < 0.001).
conclusionWe demonstrated that VDD alters pupillary functions with objective measurements. Our study may shed light on the role of vitamin D in multisystemic diseases since it is expressed in many tissues and has multiple functions. Multicenter studies with a large number of participants are needed in the future.
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.