Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34377938›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology

An overview of psychological and social factors in Charles Bonnet syndrome.

Lee Jones, Lara Ditzel-Finn, Jamie Enoch, Mariya Moosajee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Archives of disease in childhood · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lee JonesNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8030-1211
Lara Ditzel-FinnDepartment of Ophthalmology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK.
Jamie EnochDepartment of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4614-6676
Mariya MoosajeeInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1688-5360

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is a condition where cognitively normal individuals with sight impairment experience simple and/or complex visual hallucinations. The exact pathogenesis of CBS is unknown; however, deafferentation is often recognised as a causal mechanism. Studies have provided insight into the multifaceted impact of CBS on wellbeing. Onset of CBS may cause distress among those believing visual hallucinations are indicative of a neurological condition. Hallucinatory content is often congruent with the emotional response. For example, hallucinations of a macabre nature typically result in a fearful response. Visual hallucinations may be highly disruptive, causing everyday tasks to become challenging. Clinical management relies on forewarning and pre-emptive questioning. Yet, knowledge and awareness of CBS is typically low. In this review, we provide a summary of the social and psychological implications of CBS and explore recent developments aimed at raising awareness and improving patient management.

Indexed as

Charles Bonnet syndromepatient experiencewellbeing

Identifiers

PMID34377938
PMCPMC8330457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.