| Comparison of 2 monocular pupillometers and an autorefractor for measurement of the dark-adapted pupil diameter. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 21420590 Owner: NLM Status: In-Data-Review |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of the Marco Nidek ARK-530A autorefractor pupillometer function and the Keeler PupilScan II pupillometer (study pupillometer) against the clinical standard NeurOptics PLR-200 pupillometer (standard pupillometer) for measurement of the dark-adapted pupil diameter. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. METHODS: Subjects aged 20 to 60 years were dark-adapted for 2 minutes at 1 lux ambient illumination. Accommodation was controlled through distance fixation. The dark-adapted pupil diameter was measured with the standard pupillometer, then the study pupillometer, then the autorefractor. Results were compared using Bland-Altman graphs. RESULTS: The autorefractor underestimated the dark-adapted pupil diameter by a mean of 1.03 mm (range 0.0 to 2.3 mm). Thirty-four (85%) measurements were at least 0.5 mm smaller than the corresponding standard pupillometer values, and 16 (40%) were more than 1.0 mm smaller. Observer experience did not improve accuracy. The study pupillometer underestimated the dark-adapted pupil diameter by a mean of 0.31 mm (range 0.0 to 0.9 mm). Ten (25%) measurements were at least 0.5 mm smaller than the standard pupillometer values. Accuracy improved in the final 10 subjects (study pupillometer smaller; mean difference 0.16 mm; range 0.0 to 0.4 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The autorefractor pupillometry function had an unpredictable negative bias (variable underestimation of dark-adapted pupil diameter). The study pupillometer had a slight negative bias but required significant examiner skill and knowledge of normal pupil movement to obtain a valid result. Neither device was sufficiently accurate for confident surgical planning or clinical diagnosis. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Sandra M Brown; Jay C Bradley |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Journal of cataract and refractive surgery Volume: 37 ISSN: 1873-4502 ISO Abbreviation: J Cataract Refract Surg Publication Date: 2011 Apr |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2011-03-22 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 8604171 Medline TA: J Cataract Refract Surg Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 660-4 Citation Subset: IM |
Copyright Information:
|
Copyright © 2011 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
Affiliation:
|
From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (Bradley), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, and Cabarrus Eye Center (Brown), Concord, North Carolina, USA. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Opacification of AcriFlex 50CSE hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses.
Next Document: Femtosecond laser flap parameters and visual outcomes in laser in situ keratomileusis.