ArticleCureus2026
Relationship Between Temporal Variability in Pupils and Neurological Prognosis in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Quantitative pupillometry has been widely used for neurological prognostication after cardiac arrest. However, the timing and frequency of pupillary assessment vary considerably across studies, and the clinical significance of temporal fluctuations in pupillary parameters under intensive care conditions remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate temporal variability in serial quantitative pupillometry during the early post-cardiac arrest period and to explore its relationship with neurological prognostication. Methods This retrospective observational study included adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and underwent quantitative pupillometry for at least 72 hours at Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, between October 2018 and March 2020. Pupillary measurements were initiated within three hours after resuscitation and performed every six hours using an automated pupillometer. The Neurological Pupil Index (NPi) and constriction rate (CH) were analyzed bilaterally. Temporal variability was defined using clinically established thresholds for abnormal changes. Neurological outcomes at 90 days were classified according to the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC), with CPC 1-2 considered good and CPC 3-5 poor. Results A total of 27 patients were included in the final analysis; 11 (40.7%) had good neurological outcomes and 16 (59.3%) had poor outcomes. Temporal variability in NPi and CH was observed throughout the 72-hour observation period in all patients, regardless of neurological outcome. Although right NPi at 72 hours showed a statistically significant difference between outcome groups, no consistent or reproducible differences in NPi or CH were observed across time points, between both eyes, or across pupillometric parameters. Persistently absent pupillary responses (NPi = 0) were associated with poor outcomes; however, isolated or fluctuating pupillometric values did not reliably predict neurological prognosis. Conclusions Quantitative pupillometric parameters exhibit substantial temporal variability in patients after cardiac arrest under intensive care conditions. Fixed time-point assessment of pupillometry may therefore be insufficient for reliable neurological prognostication. Serial and dynamic evaluation, particularly the identification of persistently absent pupillary responses, may provide more clinically meaningful information than isolated measurements. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating.
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.