Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026
Comparison of two automated pupillometry indices in patients with acute brain injury: the prospective multicentre LYNX cohort study.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05567978 (Evaluation of the Correlation Between the 2 Pupillometry Indexes), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of the Correlation Between the 2 Pupillometry Indexes (QPI and NPI) in Cerebral Palsy Patients
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated pupillometry quantifies the pupillary light reflex in acute brain injury. The neurological pupil index (NPi) is the established composite index and carries prognostic value. A second index from a different device, the quantitative pupil index (QPi), has recently become available, but whether it conveys equivalent information in non-anoxic acute brain injury is unknown.
methodsLYNX was a prospective cohort study in three European intensive care units (September 2022-July 2024). Consecutive adults with traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid or intracerebral haemorrhage, or ischaemic stroke ventilated for more than 12 h were enrolled and followed for 6 months. Paired NPi (NPi-300) and QPi (NeuroLight) measurements were obtained at least every 6 h to day 7. Ancillary cohorts of healthy volunteers (dark vs. bright light) and surgical patients (before and after sufentanil and propofol) were also studied. The primary outcome was the correlation between the two indices; secondary outcomes were their association with intracranial hypertension and unfavourable 6-month outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended ≤ 4). Values below 3 were considered abnormal, with QPi thresholds of 2 and 4 as sensitivity analyses; multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, admission Glasgow Coma Scale score and focal deficit.
resultsAmong 108 patients (median age 57 years [IQR 44-67], 60.2% male), 7089 paired measurements were obtained. The two indices were moderately to strongly correlated (r = 0.717, 95% CI 0.705-0.730). Each 10-percentage-point increase in abnormal values independently predicted unfavourable outcome (NPi: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.04, p = 0.013; QPi: OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.31-2.37, p < 0.001). QPi was associated with intracranial hypertension (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.04-1.82, p = 0.025), whereas NPi was not. Ambient lighting and contralateral eye opening had no meaningful effect in 75 volunteers. In 20 sedated non-brain-injured patients, propofol reduced QPi to a median of 1 (IQR 1-3) and NPi to 4.0 (IQR 3.6-4.3).
conclusionsNPi and QPi were correlated and both predicted 6-month outcome, but QPi was far more sensitive to anaesthetics, which probably confounds its association with intracranial hypertension. The indices are not interchangeable in sedated critically ill patients.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05567978. Registered 5 October 2022.
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.