ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria, Clinical Symptoms, and Risk Factors for Visual Fatigue: A Modified Delphi Study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVisual fatigue is becoming increasingly prevalent globally, while universally accepted definitions and standardized diagnostic criteria remain lacking. This study aims to develop consensus-based recommendations on the definition, diagnostic criteria, core symptoms, risk factors, and assessment of visual fatigue, using a modified Delphi process to support standardized clinical and epidemiologic practice.
methodsA modified Delphi process was conducted with an international panel of experts in optometry, ophthalmology, and related disciplines. Two rounds of questionnaires were used to generate candidate definitions, diagnostic criteria, symptoms, risk factors, assessment methods and management principles. A subsequent hybrid meeting was held to discuss unresolved items and consolidate the final recommendations.
resultsOf 20 experts invited, 14 participated in the panel (response rate 70%); 13 (92.8%) completed the round-2 questionnaire and 12 (85.7%) took part in the hybrid discussion. The final consensus comprised three major recommendations with 13 constituent items. Recommendation 1 defines visual fatigue as a functional disease characterized by a core symptom set and functional impact and emphasizes identification of common associated conditions. Recommendation 2 specifies a structured assessment pathway including essential clinical examinations for confirming visual fatigue and ruling out comorbidities, and the use of questionnaires and objective assessments where available. Recommendation 3 focuses on prioritizing high-risk populations, targeting modifiable risk factors, and principles for management and outcomes to track in future work.
conclusionsThis consensus provides a foundational framework for addressing the growing global burden of visual fatigue by defining it as a distinct functional disease and providing a structured diagnostic framework and a stepwise management approach. It offers a foundation for the global standard of care for visual fatigue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42700358What 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.