Rachel Eshima McKay, Michael A Kohn, Elliot S Schwartz, Merlin D Larson
{"title":"评价两种便携式瞳孔计的临床应用价值。","authors":"Rachel Eshima McKay, Michael A Kohn, Elliot S Schwartz, Merlin D Larson","doi":"10.2217/cnc-2020-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pupillometers have been proposed as clinical assessment tools. We compared two pupillometers to assess measurement agreement.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The iPhone pupillometer had poor repeatability and suggests that it is not a practical tool to support clinical decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":37006,"journal":{"name":"Concussion","volume":"5 4","pages":"CNC82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2217/cnc-2020-0016","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of two portable pupillometers to assess clinical utility.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Eshima McKay, Michael A Kohn, Elliot S Schwartz, Merlin D Larson\",\"doi\":\"10.2217/cnc-2020-0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pupillometers have been proposed as clinical assessment tools. We compared two pupillometers to assess measurement agreement.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The iPhone pupillometer had poor repeatability and suggests that it is not a practical tool to support clinical decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Concussion\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"CNC82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2217/cnc-2020-0016\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Concussion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2217/cnc-2020-0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Concussion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/cnc-2020-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
