ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2025
Comparative analysis of pupillometry in two scheimpflug-based measurement systems.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in 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
objectiveThe primary aim of this study was to compare pupillometry measurements obtained from the Sirius™ and AL-Scan™ devices under different lighting conditions. Additionally, the secondary aim was to assess and compare the topographic (keratometric) measurements provided by these systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsA non-interventional and prospective study was conducted on normal patients aged 18-45 years. Patients who did not smoke and had a spherical equivalent ranging from + 3.00 D to - 5.0 were included. Pupillometry measurements were taken after 1 minute of dark adaptation. Only the right eyes were compared for keratometry. All eyes were compared for pupillometry. We compared the K1 (D), K2 (D), KAvg (D), photopic pupillometry (PP), and mesopic pupillometry (MP) values.
resultsWe examined a total of 30 women (66.7%) and 15 men (33.3%). AL Scan showed an average K1 of 42.99 ± 1.50 D, an average K2 of 44.04 ± 1.74, and an average Kavg of 43.58 ± 1.62. Sirius topography yielded the following averages: 42.94 ± 1.51 for K1, 43.90 ± 1.75 for K2, and 43.41 ± 1.61 for Kavg. The average PP and MP measures obtained with the Nidek Al-Scan instrument were 3.97 ± 1.08 mm and 6.04 ± 1.08 mm, respectively. The Sirus device yielded average PP and MP values of 5.05 ± 1.04 mm and 6.01 ± 1.08 mm, respectively. Bland-Altman statistics showed a good degree of correlation between the MP measurements of both devices (p = 0.65). However, K1, K2, KAvg, and PP data showed no significant agreement between both devices (p < 0.05).
conclusionIn our research, Sirius and Nidek Al-Scan equipment yield comparable MP data; however, PP is inconsistent. Device selection with repeated pupillometry data requires more investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40944850What 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.