ArticleCureus2026
The Education, Screening, and Referral Practices of Pediatricians Surrounding Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The timely recognition of pediatric cerebral/cortical visual impairment (CVI) often depends on appropriate screening and referral practices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pediatricians' CVI education levels, visual dysfunction screening and referral practices, and potential use of hypothetical screening tools of varying lengths. The findings were intended to provide new insights into CVI screening among pediatricians and inform the development of more effective CVI screening tools. Methods A 60-question survey comprising multiple-choice, select-all-that-apply, Likert-type, and free-response questions was developed. The questions assessed pediatricians' general practice information, CVI education, visual dysfunction screening and referral practices, and the intended use of theoretical screening tools of varying lengths. The survey was distributed individually via email to all 396 pediatricians in Nebraska. Eighty-nine responses were analyzed. Results Our study revealed low levels of CVI education and awareness among respondents, along with limited visual dysfunction screening during many visits for children at risk for CVI. At the same time, many respondents expressed strong interest in additional CVI education if it were available. Respondents reported greater intended use of hypothetical screening tools requiring no more than two minutes to administer. The majority of respondents also reported being somewhat or highly likely to use a hypothetical mobile screening application described in the survey. Conclusions Increasing CVI education for pediatricians may be warranted, and developing brief, practical CVI screening tools may improve their acceptability among pediatricians. These results may provide a framework for the future development of such tools; however, future studies are needed to determine whether these approaches translate into increased clinical screening and earlier diagnosis of CVI.
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.