ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Cerebral visual impairment (CVI) overlooked: A retrospective review of missed opportunities to diagnose CVI.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. 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.
- The Education, Screening, and Referral Practices of Pediatricians Surrounding Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment.Cureus · 2026Article
- The Role of a Pediatric Belt Cane in Children with Cerebral Visual Impairment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Cerebral visual impairment (CVI) overlooked: A retrospective review of missed opportunities to diagnose CVI.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is the leading cause of paediatric visual impairment in developed countries. Earlier diagnosis provides access to early intervention, which may improve visual function, functional vision and developmental outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the age and timing of CVI diagnosis and the severity of CVI.
methodA retrospective review of medical records was completed. Children with CVI were identified by billing diagnosis codes at a single centre from 1 January 2008 to 1 March 2018. CVI severity was determined using the CVI Range Rating 2. Linear regression assessed the effect of diagnosis timing on CVI Range scores as the dependent variable, adjusting for age.
resultsOne hundred and ninety-four children with CVI met inclusion. The mean age at the initial ophthalmology visit was 3.6 ± 4.4 years (6 weeks to 20 years 4 months). The mean age at CVI diagnosis was 4.6 ± 4.7 years (9 weeks to 20 years 4 months) and the mean time from first ophthalmology visit to diagnosis was 1.0 ± 1.9 years (0 days to 9 years 2 months). Earlier diagnosis was associated with more severe CVI. Sixty percent of children (116/194) were assessed with the CVI Range. Those with lower range scores (i.e., more severe CVI) were more likely to be diagnosed at the first visit. Delayed diagnosis was more common in children with higher range scores (milder CVI).
conclusionsIdentification of CVI in children is often delayed in the absence of significant vision impairment. Early screening, assessment and diagnosis are critical to ensure access to early intervention and adaptations that may improve visual function and quality of life. Frequent screenings for young children at risk for CVI using validated screening questionnaires, along with targeted history taking and the development of sensitive assessment tools, should be a research priority.
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.