ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Filling in the Blind Spot: Integrating Charles Bonnet Syndrome Screening in Ophthalmology.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Charles Bonnet Syndrome (CBS) is an underdiagnosed condition affecting patients with significant vision loss who experience complex visual hallucinations while maintaining cognitive insight. This scoping review aims to synthesize existing literature on CBS prevalence, risk factors, and screening practices, and to propose a standardized, clinically implementable screening workflow for ophthalmologists. Patients and Methods: We conducted a structured literature search across four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus) using keywords related to CBS, visual impairment, screening, and diagnosis. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed studies involving patients with vision loss that reported the use of screening tools, diagnostic criteria, or clinical assessments of CBS. Excluded were case reports with fewer than five patients, articles lacking full text or peer review, and those focused primarily on psychiatric or neurologic hallucinations. We identified 1,582 articles, with 89 studies meeting the final inclusion criteria. Results: CBS prevalence ranged from 2% to 30%, depending on the underlying ocular condition and screening method used. Age-related macular degeneration showed the highest association. Few studies utilized validated screening tools though the QR-SCB and NEVHI instruments demonstrated clinical utility. Barriers to diagnosis included patient reluctance to report symptoms and clinician unfamiliarity. We developed a pragmatic clinical model incorporating risk stratification, direct questioning, validated tools, and functional assessment to improve detection in ophthalmology clinics. Conclusion: CBS remains underdiagnosed despite its significant psychosocial burden. A structured screening approach may increase diagnostic accuracy and support timely intervention. The proposed model offers ophthalmologists a practical pathway to integrate CBS assessment into routine care.
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.