Interdevice Agreement between a Smartphone and a Commercial Pupillometer.

IF 0.8 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yamini Rattan, Kawalinder Kaur Girgla, Gaurav Mahajan, Pawan Prasher
{"title":"Interdevice Agreement between a Smartphone and a Commercial Pupillometer.","authors":"Yamini Rattan, Kawalinder Kaur Girgla, Gaurav Mahajan, Pawan Prasher","doi":"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_396_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The reliability of dynamic pupillometry parameters varies from one pupillometer to another, making it difficult to standardize the values for any particular device. Hence, further studies are required to evaluate the agreement of various pupillometer devices and explore their utility in routine clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study sought to evaluate the agreement between smartphone and commercial pupillometer measurements in routine clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included pupillary measurements obtained by a single investigator from 100 healthy participants (200 eyes) with each pupillometer. Pupillary measurements taken by a smartphone pupillometry application (reflex pupillary light reflex analyzer by Brightlamp [Indianapolis, IN, USA]) were compared with a commercial pupillometer (neurological pupil index-200, NeurOptics Inc., Irvine, USA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of descriptive statistics revealed a statistically significant difference between the smartphone and commercial pupillometers for various parameters, including maximum diameter, minimum diameter, constriction velocity (CV), maximum CV, and dilatation velocity (<i>P</i> < 0.05), except for latency (<i>P</i> = 0.36). The intraclass correlation coefficient revealed poor agreement between the two devices (<0.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The measurements by smartphone pupillometry application were found to be unreliable, indicating that they may not be an ideal substitute for commercial pupillometers in their present form in the Indian population. Further studies with larger sample size as well as improvements in the processing and interpretation of the measurements by the software, are needed to determine its utility in routine clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":13727,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research","volume":"14 1","pages":"23-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10947756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_396_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The reliability of dynamic pupillometry parameters varies from one pupillometer to another, making it difficult to standardize the values for any particular device. Hence, further studies are required to evaluate the agreement of various pupillometer devices and explore their utility in routine clinical settings.

Aim: This study sought to evaluate the agreement between smartphone and commercial pupillometer measurements in routine clinical settings.

Methods: The study included pupillary measurements obtained by a single investigator from 100 healthy participants (200 eyes) with each pupillometer. Pupillary measurements taken by a smartphone pupillometry application (reflex pupillary light reflex analyzer by Brightlamp [Indianapolis, IN, USA]) were compared with a commercial pupillometer (neurological pupil index-200, NeurOptics Inc., Irvine, USA).

Results: The comparison of descriptive statistics revealed a statistically significant difference between the smartphone and commercial pupillometers for various parameters, including maximum diameter, minimum diameter, constriction velocity (CV), maximum CV, and dilatation velocity (P < 0.05), except for latency (P = 0.36). The intraclass correlation coefficient revealed poor agreement between the two devices (<0.50).

Conclusion: The measurements by smartphone pupillometry application were found to be unreliable, indicating that they may not be an ideal substitute for commercial pupillometers in their present form in the Indian population. Further studies with larger sample size as well as improvements in the processing and interpretation of the measurements by the software, are needed to determine its utility in routine clinical settings.

智能手机与商用瞳孔计之间的设备间协议
背景:不同瞳孔仪的动态瞳孔测量参数的可靠性各不相同,因此很难对任何特定设备的数值进行标准化。因此,需要进一步研究来评估各种瞳孔计设备的一致性,并探索它们在常规临床环境中的实用性。目的:本研究旨在评估智能手机和商用瞳孔计在常规临床环境中测量结果的一致性:研究包括由一名研究人员使用每种瞳孔计对 100 名健康参与者(200 只眼)进行的瞳孔测量。将智能手机瞳孔测量应用程序(Brightlamp [Indianapolis, IN, USA]的反射瞳孔光反射分析仪)与商用瞳孔测量仪(neurological pupil index-200, NeurOptics Inc., Irvine, USA)的瞳孔测量结果进行比较:描述性统计比较显示,除潜伏期(P = 0.36)外,智能手机和商用瞳孔仪在最大直径、最小直径、收缩速度(CV)、最大 CV 和扩张速度等各种参数上的差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。类内相关系数显示两种设备之间的一致性较差(结论:智能手机瞳孔测量应用的测量结果并不可靠,这表明在印度人群中,智能手机瞳孔测量应用可能无法理想地替代现有形式的商用瞳孔测量仪。要确定其在常规临床环境中的实用性,还需要进行样本量更大的进一步研究,并改进软件对测量结果的处理和解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信