Pupillary diameter assessment: Need for a graded scale
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

Assessment of pupillary diameter is useful for lesion location, a necessary step in diagnosing neurologic disorders.1,2 Recognition of pupillary changes can serve as an early warning of acute brain injury, and may, with prompt treatment, prevent further injury. However, not all pupillary changes are relevant, because size changes in various physiologic or pharmacologic conditions.1
A few studies have evaluated the reliability of nurses to assess pupils,3,4 but none evaluated the reliability of physicians. Because, in practice, physicians usually use their own impression to assess pupillary diameter, we questioned if such a practice is justified. In this study, the inter- and intrarater reliability of physicians assessing pupillary diameters using their own judgment or a graded scale was evaluated.
Methods.
Four third- and fourth-year neurology residents consecutively evaluated the pupil size of 100 subjects (60% men; median age, 41.5 years) in randomized order. Subjects gave informed consent. Raters assessed pupil diameter twice with a 20-minute difference between trials. Room conditions including light were constant. Raters were unfamiliar with the subjects they examined. Raters 1 and 2 assessed pupil size using a graded scale; Raters 3 and 4 assessed pupil size subjectively. The scale, adapted from the French catheter scale (Cordis, Miami, FL), is graduated in 0.3-mm increments (from 1 to 11.3 mm) and has perforated circles rather than filled circles of different sizes. Raters positioned the scale on the lateral aspect of the patient’s eye, moving it to locate the circle on the scale corresponding to the pupil’s size. Raters completed a form recording each pupil size and whether there was anisocoria.
Interrater (e.g., assessing Rater 1 versus Rater 2) and intrarater (assessing the same rater’s ratings over Trials 1 and 2) reliability were measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).5 Kappa measures were used to evaluate differences in raters’ assessment of anisocoria. To determine if there were differences between the raters’ objective and subjective assessments, a two-factor ANOVA—using as factors raters,1-4 pupil side (right [RP]/left [LP]), and trial (I/II)—was performed.
Results.
Using an objective scale, the raters reported larger median pupil sizes. At the first trial, the interrater reliability for the whole group was fair (ICC, 0.40 LP) to moderate (0.43 RP). Raters using the scale achieved substantial agreement, whereas those using their own impression had moderate agreement (table). There were significant differences between Raters 3 and 4, and between them and those using the scale. No differences were found between Raters 1 and 2.
Inter- and intrarater reliability
At the second trial, the whole group achieved similar interrater reliability (0.47). Likewise, interrater agreement for raters who used the scale was better than for those using their impression (see the table).
Intrarater reliability was substantial to optimal (see the table). A two-factor ANOVA showed differences in pupil measurements between raters (p < 0.0001) but not between trials. Differences were between Raters 3 and 4 (p < 0.0002), and between them and Raters 1 and 2 (p < 0.0001), but not between Raters 1 and 2. There was no interaction between raters and trials.
Anisocoria.
Interrater reliability of the four raters was slight (0.18). Interrater reliability between raters using objective and subjective measures was also slight. There were no significant differences between trials. Raters using the scale reported anisocoria more often (23 versus 9 of 100 subjects).
Discussion.
Our study demonstrates that physicians using a scale achieved consistently better interrater reliability (substantial) than those using their own impression (moderate). This finding is particularly relevant when patients are assessed by different physicians in potentially evolving emergency situations. However, the method of assessment did not influence the intrarater reliability.
In the current study, each neurologist independently assessed a large number of subjects randomly assigned to assure sufficient statistical power. Our study design eliminated methodologic bias related to order of evaluation and lack of blindness, which limited the interpretation of previous studies.3,4
Our study, similar to previous ones,6,7 showed a low interrater reliability of neurologists in assessing anisocoria. This finding should be carefully interpreted because kappa is a measure that considers agreement beyond chance. The study group consisted of 100 normal subjects, most without anisocoria, and when the number of events is low, the chance of agreement increases. In fact, raters’ percentage of agreement (91%) and agreement by chance were high (87%). It could be argued that the lack of an a priori definition of anisocoria contributes to a low interrater agreement.
Based on our findings, a graded scale should be used when more than one physician assesses pupillary diameter. However, when the same physician evaluates the pupils, the subjective method may still be reliable, if one excludes potential emergency evolving neurologic situations. Whether an a priori working definition of anisocoria will improve interrater reliability needs to be determined.
Footnotes
-
Copyright © 2000 by the American Academy of Neurology
- Received July 20, 1999.
- Accepted September 6, 1999.
References
- ↵
DeJong RN, Haerer AF. Case taking and the neurologic examination. In: Joynt R, ed. Clinical neurology. Vol. I.Philadelphia:JB Lippincott, 1995:49–68.
- ↵
Bradley WG, Daroff RB, Fenichel GM, Marsden CD. Neurology in clinical practice. Principles of diagnosis and management. 2nd ed. Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996:209–218.
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
Hansen M, Christensen PB, Sindrup SH, Olsen NK, Kristensen O, Friis ML. Inter-rater variation in the evaluation of neurological signs. J Neurol 1994;241:495–504.
- ↵
Vogel HP. Influence of additional information on the interrater reliability in the neurologic examination. Neurology 1992;42:2076–2081.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing for Mitochondrial Disease Diagnosis
Dr. Robert Pitceathly and Dr. William Macken
► Watch
Related Articles
- No related articles found.
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Cutaneous Neurofibromas
Validating Techniques for Measurement of Cutaneous NeurofibromasRecommendations for Clinical TrialsRaquel D. Thalheimer, Vanessa L. Merker, K. Ina Ly et al.Neurology, July 06, 2021 -
Research Article
Automated Quantitative Pupillometry in the Critically IllA Systematic Review of the LiteraturePetra Opic, Stephan Rüegg, Stephan Marsch et al.Neurology, May 27, 2021 -
Articles
The Microbleed Anatomical Rating Scale (MARS)Reliability of a tool to map brain microbleedsS. M. Gregoire, U. J. Chaudhary, M. M. Brown et al.Neurology, November 23, 2009 -
Resident & Fellow Section
Pearls & Oy-sters: Anisocoria Greater in the Dark: It's Not Just All About Horner PupilEmily Witsberger, Sasha A. Mansukhani, John J. Chen et al.Neurology, November 18, 2020