ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparison of automated ultrasound pupillometry assessment vs. infrared pupillary in critically ill patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Brain-first versus body-first Parkinson's disease: Differential findings on pupillary, brainstem and vagus sonography.Journal of neurology · 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
Background: The pupillary light reflex (PLR) is a critical indicator of brainstem function in neurocritical care, but traditional assessments are often subjective, inconsistent, and prone to inter-examiner variability. Automated infrared pupillometry (IPA) provides objective metrics and is increasingly used in clinical practice, yet its accuracy may be compromised by eyelid swelling or ocular trauma. Automated ultrasound pupillometry (Auto-UPA) offers a non-invasive, transpalpebral alternative that can overcome these limitations. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement and reliability of Auto-UPA compared with IPA in ICU patients. Methods: In this prospective observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients (February 1 to September 25, 2025) underwent paired Auto-UPA and IPA assessments under standardized conditions. PLR metrics included initial (INIT) and end (END) pupil diameters, latency (LAT), constriction ratio (DELTA), average constriction velocity (ACV), and average dilation velocity (ADV). Agreement was assessed using linear regression, Bland-Altman plots, and limits of agreement (LoA). Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for intra- and inter-observer variability. Results: Twenty patients (40 eyes) were enrolled. High agreement was observed for pupil diameters and most dynamic indices (INIT: Conclusions: Auto-UPA shows strong agreement with IPA in most PLR metrics and provides robust reliability, supporting its role as a feasible and practical alternative in settings where IPA is unavailable or impractical.
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.