ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2025
The nexus between pupillary constriction characteristics and accommodative facility: A quantitative and correlational study.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the interplay between pupillary constriction dynamics and variations in accommodative facility.
methodsThis study included 400 eyes from 200 subjects, divided into high and low-accommodative facility groups based on performance measured in cycles per minute (CPM) using accommodative flippers (±2.00D). Pupillary constriction dynamics were assessed using an iPhone-based pupillometer application, focusing on constriction speed and amplitude.
resultsThe high accommodative facility group (mean ± SD: 14.2 ± 1.1 CPM) significantly outperformed the low facility group (mean ± SD: 9.4 ± 1.2 CPM, P < 0.001). Pupillary constriction speed was faster in the high facility group (mean ± SD: 3.8 ± 0.5 mm/s) compared to the low facility group (mean ± SD: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/s, P = 0.002). Amplitude of constriction was greater in the high facility group (mean ± SD: 2.3 ± 0.3 mm) versus the low facility group (mean ± SD: 1.9 ± 0.4 mm, P = 0.005). Significant positive correlations were found between constriction speed and accommodative facility ( r = 0.58, P = 0.001) and between constriction amplitude and accommodative facility ( r = 0.52, P = 0.003). Multiple regression analysis indicated that constriction speed and amplitude collectively predicted accommodative facility, with an R² of 0.47 ( P < 0.001), explaining 47% of the variance.
conclusionIncreased pupillary constriction speed and amplitude are significantly associated with higher accommodative facility. These findings highlight the role of pupillary dynamics as predictors of accommodative performance and provide insights into the mechanisms underlying accommodative dysfunction.
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.