Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
We would like to thank Professor Maas and colleagues [1] for showing interest in our recent publication, “Can Quantitative Pupillometry be Used to Screen for Elevated Intracranial Pressure? A Retrospective Cohort Study”. We welcome this discussion regarding the use of quantitative pupillometry. The arguments and reasoning regarding how to interpret negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) outlined by Maas et al. [1] in their letter to the editor are completely valid. However, we believe that Maas and colleagues [1] have interpreted our conclusion somewhat differently than what we intended. We stated as our main conclusion in the abstract, “Screening with NPi may inform high stakes clinical decisions by ruling out elevated ICP with a high degree of certainty” (emphasis added) [2].
Our high NPV of 96.7% supports this conclusion, suggesting a very low rate of false negative results.
NPV is, as Maas et al. [1] outline, dependent on the prevalence of the condition.
Our results are based on a population undergoing invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring, and although the proportion of elevated ICP in our cohort was “merely” 7%, it is difficult imagining a screening population with a higher rate of elevated ICP. Rather, the prevalence of elevated ICP in a broader population with a mere suggestion of elevated ICP would be even lower, which would be reflected as an even higher NPV. As Maas et al. [1] correctly state, PPV would worsen with a lower pretest probability, but this is not the main purpose of implementing a rule-out test. Compare this with the widely used D-dimer test for ruling out venous thromboembolism; this test has an excellent NPV but a poorer PPV, yet it still finds important clinical use as a rule-out test [3].
Clinical decisions always involve weighing different risks and opportunities for the individual patient. In some decisions, high sensitivity and PPV are preferable, whereas in other decisions high specificity and NPV are preferable.
We agree with Maas et al. [1] that quantitative pupillometry in the hospital setting most likely has its main use as part of a multimodal approach to neuromonitoring, and we currently have ongoing studies of that, as well. However, given the ease of use and excellent interrater reliability of quantitative pupillometry [4,5,6], we believe that it may be of use in low-resource and/or prehospital settings, as well, as a rule-out test. The use of quantitative pupillometry is largely to be decided by future research. Still, based on current knowledge, we hold to the cautious statement in our conclusion that quantitative pupillometry may inform high-stake clinical decisions by ruling out elevated ICP with a high degree of certainty, especially under circumstances in which clinicians have little information—except for clinical findings—to base their decisions on.
References
Maas MB, Naidech AM, Batra A, Chou SH‑Y, Bleck TP. Comment on “Can Quantitative Pupillometry be used to Screen for Elevated Intracranial Pressure? A Retrospective Cohort Study”. Neurocrit Care. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01549-5.
Pansell J, Hack R, Rudberg P, Bell M, Cooray C. Can quantitative pupillometry be used to screen for elevated intracranial pressure? A retrospective cohort study. Neurocrit Care. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01518-y.
Schouten HJ, Geersing GJ, Koek HL, Zuithoff NP, Janssen KJ, Douma RA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of conventional or age adjusted D-dimer cut-off values in older patients with suspected venous thromboembolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2013;346: f2492.
Morelli P, Oddo M, Ben-Hamouda N. Role of automated pupillometry in critically ill patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019;85(9):995–1002.
Bower MM, Sweidan AJ, Xu JC, Stern-Neze S, Yu W, Groysman LI. Quantitative pupillometry in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med. 2019:885066619881124.
Couret D, Boumaza D, Grisotto C, Triglia T, Pellegrini L, Ocquidant P, et al. Reliability of standard pupillometry practice in neurocritical care: an observational, double-blinded study. Crit Care. 2016;20:99.
Funding
JP received funding from the Stockholm Region Innovations Fund. CC received funding from from the Angeby Foundation (“Ulla Hamberg Angeby och Lennart Angebys stiftelse”) at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This response was written by JP, PR, MB, and CC. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None of the authors report any conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is related to the original article available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01518-y. This article is a response to the Letter to the Editor available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01549-5
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pansell, J., Rudberg, P., Bell, M. et al. Response to Letter to the Editor: Can Quantitative Pupillometry be Used to Screen for Elevated Intracranial Pressure? A Retrospective Cohort Study. Neurocrit Care 37, 599–600 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01550-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01550-y