Evaluation of two portable pupillometers to assess clinical utility

BACKGROUND: Pupillometers have been proposed as clinical assessment tools. We compared two pupillometers to assess measurement agreement. MATERIALS & METHODS: We enrolled 30 subjects and simultaneously measured the pupil diameter and light reflex amplitude with an iPhone pupillometer and a porta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McKay, Rachel Eshima, Kohn, Michael A, Schwartz, Elliot S, Larson, Merlin D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Future Medicine Ltd 2020
Materias:
Short Communication
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653507/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33204494
http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/cnc-2020-0016
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pupillometers have been proposed as clinical assessment tools. We compared two pupillometers to assess measurement agreement. MATERIALS & METHODS: We enrolled 30 subjects and simultaneously measured the pupil diameter and light reflex amplitude with an iPhone pupillometer and a portable infrared pupillometer. We then enrolled 40 additional subjects and made serial measurements with each device. RESULTS: Failure occurred in 30% of attempts made with the iPhone pupillometer compared with 4% of attempts made with the infrared pupillometer (Fisher’s exact p = 0.0001). Method comparison of the two devices used simultaneously showed significant disagreement in dynamic measurements. CONCLUSION: The iPhone pupillometer had poor repeatability and suggests that it is not a practical tool to support clinical decisions.

Ejemplares similares