ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2018
A pilot study regarding basic knowledge of "cortical visual impairment in children" among ophthalmologists.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensory substitution and augmentation techniques in cerebral visual impairment: a discussion of lived experiences.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- 'We don't know nearly enough': an online survey exploring perspectives of specialists who support children with brain-based visual impairments.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Towards population screening for Cerebral Visual Impairment: Validity of the Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA pilot study was done to evaluate knowledge regarding "cortical visual impairment (CVI) in children" among ophthalmologists.
methodsThis study was conducted during the annual conference of a zonal ophthalmological society. All ophthalmologists who attended the conference were requested to participate in this study. Those who agreed were given a validated questionnaire to assess knowledge regarding CVI. Cronbach's alpha of the questionnaire was 0.6. Participants were asked to respond to multiple choice questions by choosing the single best option. The responses obtained were then evaluated.
resultsThe total number of registered delegates in the conference was 448. A total of 103 ophthalmologists showed interest to participate in the study with a response rate of 22.9%. Only 89/103 interested delegates were included in the study as remaining were unaware of CVI. No participant gave correct answers to all questions. Although more than 80% of them knew the most common association (87%) and site of pathology (84%), only 52% were sure about clinical features and even lesser respondents (39%) knew that magnetic resonance imaging is the correct investigation of choice. The majority responded correctly that these children need eye examination (89%) and can be managed by rehabilitation through multidisciplinary approach (82%), but only 58% could recognize differential diagnoses and had a correct idea regarding the prognosis of CVI. There was no correlation between the number of patients diagnosed per month by the respondent with knowledge of the disease.
conclusionIn this pilot study, ophthalmologists were found to have limited knowledge regarding clinical features, investigation, differential diagnosis, and visual prognosis of CVI in children. There is a need to improve awareness regarding CVI among ophthalmologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.