Superior reproducibility and repeatability in automated quantitative pupillometry compared to standard manual assessment, and quantitative pupillary response parameters present high reliability in critically ill cardiac patients
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Superior reproducibility and repeatability in automated quantitative pupillometry compared to standard manual assessment, and quantitative pupillary response parameters present high reliability in critically ill cardiac patients. / Nyholm, Benjamin; Obling, Laust; Hassager, Christian; Grand, Johannes; Møller, Jacob; Othman, Marwan; Kondziella, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Jesper.
In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 17, No. 7 , e0272303, 2022.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Superior reproducibility and repeatability in automated quantitative pupillometry compared to standard manual assessment, and quantitative pupillary response parameters present high reliability in critically ill cardiac patients
AU - Nyholm, Benjamin
AU - Obling, Laust
AU - Hassager, Christian
AU - Grand, Johannes
AU - Møller, Jacob
AU - Othman, Marwan
AU - Kondziella, Daniel
AU - Kjaergaard, Jesper
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Nyholm et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background Quantitative pupillometry is part of multimodal neuroprognostication of comatose patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, the reproducibility, repeatability, and reliability of quantitative pupillometry in this setting have not been investigated. Methods In a prospective blinded validation study, we compared manual and quantitative measurements of pupil size. Observer and device variability for all available parameters are expressed as mean difference (bias), limits of agreement (LoA), and reliability expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval. Results Fifty-six unique quadrupled sets of measurement derived from 14 sedated and comatose patients (mean age 70±12 years) were included. For manually measured pupil size, inter-observer bias was -0.14±0.44 mm, LoA of -1.00 to 0.71 mm, and ICC at 0.92 (0.86-0.95). For quantitative pupillometry, we found bias at 0.03±0.17 mm, LoA of -0.31 to 0.36 mm and ICCs at 0.99. Quantitative pupillometry also yielded lower bias and LoA and higher ICC for intra-observer and inter-device measurements. Correlation between manual and automated pupillometry was better in larger pupils, and quantitative pupillometry had less variability and higher ICC, when assessing small pupils. Further, observers failed to detect 26% of the quantitatively estimated abnormal reactivity with manual assessment. We found ICC >0.91 for all quantitative pupillary response parameters (except for latency with ICC 0.81-0.91). Conclusion Automated quantitative pupillometry has excellent reliability and twice the reproducibility and repeatability than manual pupillometry. This study further presents novel estimates of variability for all quantitative pupillary response parameters with excellent reliability.
AB - Background Quantitative pupillometry is part of multimodal neuroprognostication of comatose patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, the reproducibility, repeatability, and reliability of quantitative pupillometry in this setting have not been investigated. Methods In a prospective blinded validation study, we compared manual and quantitative measurements of pupil size. Observer and device variability for all available parameters are expressed as mean difference (bias), limits of agreement (LoA), and reliability expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval. Results Fifty-six unique quadrupled sets of measurement derived from 14 sedated and comatose patients (mean age 70±12 years) were included. For manually measured pupil size, inter-observer bias was -0.14±0.44 mm, LoA of -1.00 to 0.71 mm, and ICC at 0.92 (0.86-0.95). For quantitative pupillometry, we found bias at 0.03±0.17 mm, LoA of -0.31 to 0.36 mm and ICCs at 0.99. Quantitative pupillometry also yielded lower bias and LoA and higher ICC for intra-observer and inter-device measurements. Correlation between manual and automated pupillometry was better in larger pupils, and quantitative pupillometry had less variability and higher ICC, when assessing small pupils. Further, observers failed to detect 26% of the quantitatively estimated abnormal reactivity with manual assessment. We found ICC >0.91 for all quantitative pupillary response parameters (except for latency with ICC 0.81-0.91). Conclusion Automated quantitative pupillometry has excellent reliability and twice the reproducibility and repeatability than manual pupillometry. This study further presents novel estimates of variability for all quantitative pupillary response parameters with excellent reliability.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0272303
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0272303
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 35901103
AN - SCOPUS:85135003564
VL - 17
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 7
M1 - e0272303
ER -
ID: 321959533