ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
A comparison between two indices derived from automated pupillometry devices.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated pupillometry provides a standardised, quantitative, highly reproducible measurement of the pupillary light reactivity and other pupillary variables. The Neurologic pupillary index (NPi) has shown good prognostic value in patients with acute brain injury and cardiac arrest. However, few data on the comparison of NPi with a recently introduced index (quantitative pupillary index, QPI) are available. To compare the performance of two commercially available automated pupillometry devices, and in particular QPI and NPi, in a cohort of neuro-critically ill patients. Single-center observational study, including adult (> 18 years) patients admitted to a neuro-intensive care unit over a 6-month period. Pupillary reactivity was assessed in both eyes of each patient using the two pupillometers currently available, the Neuroptics NPi-300 (Neuroptics, Irvine, CA, USA) and the NeuroLight (ID-Med, Marseilles, France). A total of 73 patients were included in the final analysis, with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range [IQR] 54-77). The mean bias between the two pupillometers was 0.44 mm (95% Limit of Agreement [LoA] - 0.43 mm to 1.31 mm) for pupil diameter, 0.57% (95% LoA - 7.63% to 8.77%) for pupillary reactivity, and - 0.82 (95% LoA - 2.70 to 1.05) for NPi vs. QPI comparison. A very strong correlation was found between the two devices in terms of pupil diameter measurement (ρ = 0.91; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.86 to 0.95; p < 0.0001) and pupil reactivity (ρ = 0.92; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95; p < 0.0001). NPi and QPI were well correlated (ρ = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84; p < 0.0001). In this cohort study, a significant statistical correlation between the measurements provided by two available pupilometers was found; however, NPi and QPI might not be clinically interchangeable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667581What 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.