ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026
Does EyeKinetix pupillometry clarify RAPD detection?
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.
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.
- Automated pupillometric quantification of relative afferent pupillary defect: comparison with neutral density filter grading in unilateral/asymmetric optic neuropathy.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41920452What 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.