ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Preverbal visual assessment for screening cerebral visual impairment: Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the relationship between Preverbal Visual Assessment (PreViAs) results and cerebral visual impairment (CVI) diagnosis.
methodThis single-center retrospective chart review included children who completed a CVI interdisciplinary clinic or occupational therapy vision evaluation between May 2018 and May 2023 and had a completed PreViAs. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Data analysis included sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Fisher's exact test.
resultsOf the 205 charts screened, 98 met study criteria (81 with CVI, 17 without); ages ranged from 3 to 50 months. The mean age of children with CVI was 15.41 months (SD = 8.93) and without was 13.24 months (SD = 5.98). Among the PreViAs domains, visual processing showed the highest frequency of concern (CVI = 94%; non-CVI = 76%), while visual attention had the lowest (CVI = 72%; non-CVI = 41%). Visual processing demonstrated the highest sensitivity (93.8%), whereas visual attention showed the best balance of sensitivity (71.6%) and specificity (58.8%). Area under the curve ranged from 0.59 to 0.66. All domains demonstrated significant differences between children with and without CVI (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.05).
interpretationEffective screening tools are critical for detection of CVI. The PreViAs is a sensitive screening tool in children at high risk for CVI. Children with concerns on the PreViAs should be referred for an interdisciplinary CVI evaluation.
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.