Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit New Manuscript
    • Submit Revised Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit New Manuscript
    • Submit Revised Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

January 25, 2000; 54 (2) Clinical/Scientific Notes

Pupillary diameter assessment: Need for a graded scale

I. Litvan, G. Saposnik, J. Mauriño, L. Gonzalez, R. Saizar, R.E. P. Sica, J.J. Bartko
First published January 25, 2000, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.54.2.530
I. Litvan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Saposnik
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Mauriño
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Gonzalez
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Saizar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R.E. P. Sica
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J.J. Bartko
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Pupillary diameter assessment: Need for a graded scale
I. Litvan, G. Saposnik, J. Mauriño, L. Gonzalez, R. Saizar, R.E. P. Sica, J.J. Bartko
Neurology Jan 2000, 54 (2) 530; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.54.2.530

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
196

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

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.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

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

  1. ↵
    DeJong RN, Haerer AF. Case taking and the neurologic examination. In: Joynt R, ed. Clinical neurology. Vol. I.Philadelphia:JB Lippincott, 1995:49–68.
  2. ↵
    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.
  3. ↵
    Lord-Feroli K, Maguire-McGinty M. Toward a more objective approach to pupil assessment. J Neurosurg Nurs 1985;17:309–312.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    Wilson S, Amling JK, Floyd SD, McNair ND. Determining interrater reliability of nurses’ assessment of pupil size. J Neurosci Nurs 1988;20:189–192.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    Bartko JJ, Carpenter WT. On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis 1976;163:307–317.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    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.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    Vogel HP. Influence of additional information on the interrater reliability in the neurologic examination. Neurology 1992;42:2076–2081.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract

Letters: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

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.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Methods.
    • Results.
    • Anisocoria.
    • Discussion.
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

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

  • Alert me when eletters are published

Recommended articles

  • Cutaneous Neurofibromas
    Validating Techniques for Measurement of Cutaneous Neurofibromas
    Recommendations for Clinical Trials
    Raquel D. Thalheimer, Vanessa L. Merker, K. Ina Ly et al.
    Neurology, July 06, 2021
  • Research Article
    Automated Quantitative Pupillometry in the Critically Ill
    A Systematic Review of the Literature
    Petra 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 microbleeds
    S. 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 Pupil
    Emily Witsberger, Sasha A. Mansukhani, John J. Chen et al.
    Neurology, November 18, 2020
Neurology: 100 (11)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Education
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2023 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise