ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Benefit of psychiatric evaluation on anxiety in patients with Charles Bonnet syndrome.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Charles Bonnet syndrome in routine eye care services.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Charles Bonnet syndrome in adults with inherited retinal disease: prevalence and patient perspectives.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Awareness of Charles Bonnet syndrome among ophthalmologists: a survey study.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- From research to action: recommendations for Charles Bonnet syndrome care and policy.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Filling in the Blind Spot: Integrating Charles Bonnet Syndrome Screening in Ophthalmology.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Epidemiology and phenomenology of the Charles Bonnet syndrome in low-vision patients.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- An overview of psychological and social factors in Charles Bonnet syndrome.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCharles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is defined as an occurrence of visual hallucinations (VHs) in the absence of any psychiatric/neurological disorder. Significantly reduced vision due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), cataract or glaucoma is the most common cause for CBS. Aim of this randomized controlled study was to assess whether additional treatment by a psychiatrist is beneficial for patients with CBS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with visual acuity of 0.5 LogMAR or worse in the better eye were screened. Instruments used were an interview asking about details of the VH, a mental test and a questionnaire on quality of life. Patients with CBS were randomised into two groups: in group 1, a patient-doctor consultation was performed by an ophthalmologist, and in group 2 a consultation and, if needed, additional medical assessment and treatment was given by a psychiatrist.
results4900 patients were screened. 390 patients met the inclusion criteria and among these a CBS prevalence of 34 patients (8.7%) was found. The female-to-male ratio was 4:1 and the average age was 79.3 ± 9.7 years. Four different types of VH were observed:
conclusionIt is essential for medical staff involved with patients suffering from severe vision loss to be aware of CBS. This will help to better identify and interpret symptoms and could also lead to a more adequate treatment for affected patients. DISCUSSION: It is essential for medical staff involved with patients suffering from severe vision loss to be aware of CBS. This will help to better identify and interpret symptoms and could also lead to a more adequate treatment for affected patients.
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.