@article{ref1,
title="Evaluation of two portable pupillometers to assess clinical utility",
journal="Concussion",
year="2020",
author="McKay, Rachel Eshima and Kohn, Michael A. and Schwartz, Elliot S. and Larson, Merlin D.",
volume="5",
number="4",
pages="CNC82-CNC82",
abstract="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). <br><br>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.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="2056-3299",
doi="10.2217/cnc-2020-0016",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/cnc-2020-0016"
}