Interdevice Agreement between a Smartphone and a Commercial Pupillometer

Background: The reliability of dynamic pupillometry parameters varies from one pupillometer to another, making it difficult to standardize the values for any particular device. Hence, further studies are required to evaluate the agreement of various pupillometer devices and explore their utility in routine clinical settings. Aim: This study sought to evaluate the agreement between smartphone and commercial pupillometer measurements in routine clinical settings. Methods: The study included pupillary measurements obtained by a single investigator from 100 healthy participants (200 eyes) with each pupillometer. Pupillary measurements taken by a smartphone pupillometry application (reflex pupillary light reflex analyzer by Brightlamp [Indianapolis, IN, USA]) were compared with a commercial pupillometer (neurological pupil index-200, NeurOptics Inc., Irvine, USA). Results: The comparison of descriptive statistics revealed a statistically significant difference between the smartphone and commercial pupillometers for various parameters, including maximum diameter, minimum diameter, constriction velocity (CV), maximum CV, and dilatation velocity (P < 0.05), except for latency (P = 0.36). The intraclass correlation coefficient revealed poor agreement between the two devices (<0.50). Conclusion: The measurements by smartphone pupillometry application were found to be unreliable, indicating that they may not be an ideal substitute for commercial pupillometers in their present form in the Indian population. Further studies with larger sample size as well as improvements in the processing and interpretation of the measurements by the software, are needed to determine its utility in routine clinical settings.