ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Pupil size measurements with two multifunctional devices based on different technologies and an infrared based pupillometer.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 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
purposeTo compare inter- and intra-device agreement of pupil size (PS) measurements of an aberrometer/coherence interferometer/tomographer (Pentacam AXL Wave (OCULUS)), optical coherence tomographer/placido topographer (MS-39, (CSO/Schwind)) and an infrared based pupillometer (PupilX (Albomed)).
methodsIn this prospective study, PS of healthy eyes was measured with Pentacam without (WO) and with glare (WG), PupilX in 0, 0.06, 0.12, 4 and 64 lx and MS-39 in 0.04, 4 and 50 lx three times each. Scotopic conditions were defined as WO and ≤ 0.12 lx, mesopic as 4 lx and photopic as WG, 50 and 64 lx. Measurements were compared per lighting condition.
resultsThirty-seven eyes of 37 participants (mean age 30.8 years ± 9.1 years) were included. Pentacam WG and PupilX at 64 lx showed the lowest inter-device difference and had the only non-significant difference (p = 0.204). The second lowest mean difference was between Pentacam WO and PupilX at 0.06 lx where significance was also not met (p = 0.05). Pentacam WO and PupilX at 0 lx showed the highest inter-device difference (p < 0.001). The lowest intra-device difference (IDD) for scotopic conditions was 0.19 mm (standard deviation (SD): 0.17 mm) with PupilX at 0 lx. In mesopic conditions, the lowest IDD was 0.2 mm (SD: 0.15 mm) with MS-39, in photopic conditions 0.16 mm (SD: 0.11 mm) with PupilX.
conclusionPentacam showed close-to-acceptable agreement with PupilX in photopic conditions. In the other conditions significant differences were found, which applied for MS-39 and PupilX for all illumination levels. All three devices showed excellent intra-device repeatability for all illuminations levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42809009What 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.