SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Prognostic value of automated pupillometry in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major global cause of mortality and long-term disability. Early prognostication is critical for guiding management decisions. Quantitative pupillometry (QP), using automated devices such as the NeurOptics NPi-200/300, enables bedside measurement of pupillary reactivity through indices like the Neurological Pupil Index (NPi), constriction velocity (CV), and dilation velocity (DV). We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of QP in adults with TBI. Observational studies of quantitative pupillometry within 72 h of traumatic brain injury in adult ICU patients were included. Studies limited to mild TBI were excluded, although mixed-severity cohorts were eligible. Primary outcomes were mortality and poor functional outcome at 3-6 months (GOS ≤ 3 or mRS ≥ 3). Secondary analyses assessed differences in pupillometry metrics according to intracranial hypertension defined by direct ICP measurements (> 20-25 mmHg) or proxy markers reflecting ICP-directed interventions. Odds ratios were pooled for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes using random-effects models, with heterogeneity quantified by I². Four studies (n = 354) reported mortality data. Abnormal quantitative pupillary metrics (most commonly NPi < 3 or absent reflexes) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital death (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.01-3.35; I² = 84%). Five studies (n = 384) assessed functional outcomes, showing significantly greater odds of poor outcome among patients with abnormal pupillary metrics (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.63-8.10; I² = 39%). Three studies (n = 190) evaluated intracranial pressure, demonstrating lower NPi values in patients with intracranial hypertension compared with those without elevated ICP, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (MD - 1.05, 95% CI - 2.65 to 0.54). Early quantitative pupillometry is associated with increased mortality and worse functional outcomes in TBI in observational studies. Lower quantitative pupillary metrics were also observed in the presence of intracranial hypertension. Despite substantial heterogeneity, these findings support its potential as a prognostic tool. Further standardization, validation and controlled studies are needed to refine its clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42477220What 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.