Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41920452›Full record

ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026

Does EyeKinetix pupillometry clarify RAPD detection?

Mark A Kahrhoff, Carl J Bassi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark A KahrhoffDepartment of Ophthalmology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. kmark@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6084-3554
Carl J BassiUniversity of Missouri - St. Louis College of Optometry, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate variability observed in pupil light response with the EyeKinetix pupillometer in healthy non-dark-adapted individuals.

methodsWe performed objective pupillometry in 440 non-dark-adapted patients with 20/20 corrected visual acuity, normal visual fields, and no ophthalmic disease who presented for routine exam. EyeKinetix was performed as part of the routine exam screening protocol. Metrics reviewed were RAPDx amplitude scores, latency scores, and quantitative metrics of pupil dynamics measured by the EyeKinetix. Sequential retesting was analyzed for repeatability. Statistical analyses included normality testing, confidence intervals, t-tests, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) calculations for repeated measures.

resultsAmplitude and latency scores exhibited significant variability. The mean amplitude score was 0.0249 ± 0.247, with 5% of patients >  = 2 standard deviations [> 0.51 log unit (LU)]. Latency scores showed low reliability (ICC = 0.165), whereas amplitude, constriction velocity, and release velocity demonstrated moderate to high reliability (ICC = 0.472-0.966).

conclusionObjective pupillometry without dark adaptation using the EyeKinetix device displays substantial variability and identifies a number of relative afferent pupil defects (RAPDs) in this cohort of healthy patients. These findings indicate that, in healthy populations, reliance on RAPDx scores alone could generate false positives. Establishing robust normative cutoffs and validating them in disease cohorts will be necessary before reliable use as a screener. Further optimization may be necessary for more clinical confidence in a primary care setting.

Indexed as

Automated pupillometryObjective pupillometryRelative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD), testing reliability, Marcus Gunn pupilSwinging flashlight test

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.