Comparison of bedside clinical pupillary assessment with automated pupillometry in sedated ICU patients

Pupillary assessment is central in neurocritical care and although inherently subjective, bedside penlight examination remains standard practice. While automated pupillometry provides objective, standardized measurements, the reliability of manual assessment across professional categories remains poorly characterized. Prospective observational study in a surgical and trauma intensive care unit (Reims, Feb–Dec 2025). Thirty sedated or comatose adults underwent repeated pupillary assessments by nurses, residents, and senior physicians, which were compared with automated pupillometry as the reference standard, yielding 1,692 paired bilateral measurements from 30 patients. Primary outcome was agreement for anisocoria detection (≥ 1 mm) and secondary outcomes were pupil size and reactivity, measured using Brennan-Prediger adjusted kappa and McNemar test. Agreement for anisocoria was substantial: nurses κ = 0.64 (95% CI 0.57–0.72), residents κ = 0.74 (0.68–0.81), physicians κ = 0.71 (0.64–0.78 , p < 0.0001). False-positive rates were high (82–86%), while true anisocoria was detected in 55–73% of cases. For pupil size, agreement was substantial: nurses κ = 0.65 (0.60–0.70), residents κ = 0.64 (0.59–0.65), physicians κ = 0.66 (0.60–0.71), but mydriasis was largely missed (6–11% detection; p < 0.0001). Reactivity showed the weakest agreement: nurses κ = 0.40 (0.34–0.47), residents κ = 0.32 (0.26–0.39), physicians κ = 0.41 (0.34–0.47), with systemic underestimation in nurses ( p ≤ 0.0001) and a bidirectional error pattern for residents ( p = 0.81). In sedated ICU patients, bedside pupillary assessment showed substantial but systematically biased agreement with automated pupillometry, particularly for anisocoria, mydriasis, and pupillary reactivity. These findings highlight the limitations of subjective bedside assessment and support automated pupillometry as an objective complement to routine clinical examination. NCT06733207, registered 10 December 2024 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06733207.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Anesthesiology
Published
2026-07-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-026-04124-z
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of bedside clinical pupillary assessment with automated pupillometry in sedated ICU patients

Lukshe Kanagaratnam, Vincent Legros, Alice Arndt, Thierry Floch et al.
BMC Anesthesiology
Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
article

Comparison of bedside clinical pupillary assessment with automated pupillometry in sedated ICU patients

Lukshe Kanagaratnam, Vincent Legros, Alice Arndt, Thierry Floch, Pierre-Antoine Seube-Remy, Carl Arndt
article en

Abstract

Pupillary assessment is central in neurocritical care and although inherently subjective, bedside penlight examination remains standard practice. While automated pupillometry provides objective, standardized measurements, the reliability of manual assessment across professional categories remains poorly characterized. Prospective observational study in a surgical and trauma intensive care unit (Reims, Feb–Dec 2025). Thirty sedated or comatose adults underwent repeated pupillary assessments by nurses, residents, and senior physicians, which were compared with automated pupillometry as the reference standard, yielding 1,692 paired bilateral measurements from 30 patients. Primary outcome was agreement for anisocoria detection (≥ 1 mm) and secondary outcomes were pupil size and reactivity, measured using Brennan-Prediger adjusted kappa and McNemar test. Agreement for anisocoria was substantial: nurses κ = 0.64 (95% CI 0.57–0.72), residents κ = 0.74 (0.68–0.81), physicians κ = 0.71 (0.64–0.78 , p < 0.0001). False-positive rates were high (82–86%), while true anisocoria was detected in 55–73% of cases. For pupil size, agreement was substantial: nurses κ = 0.65 (0.60–0.70), residents κ = 0.64 (0.59–0.65), physicians κ = 0.66 (0.60–0.71), but mydriasis was largely missed (6–11% detection; p < 0.0001). Reactivity showed the weakest agreement: nurses κ = 0.40 (0.34–0.47), residents κ = 0.32 (0.26–0.39), physicians κ = 0.41 (0.34–0.47), with systemic underestimation in nurses ( p ≤ 0.0001) and a bidirectional error pattern for residents ( p = 0.81). In sedated ICU patients, bedside pupillary assessment showed substantial but systematically biased agreement with automated pupillometry, particularly for anisocoria, mydriasis, and pupillary reactivity. These findings highlight the limitations of subjective bedside assessment and support automated pupillometry as an objective complement to routine clinical examination. NCT06733207, registered 10 December 2024 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06733207.

BMC Anesthesiology
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims (FR), Hôpital Maison Blanche (FR), Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.