ArticleCureus2026
Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment in Primary Care: Extending the Evidence to Family Medicine.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Cerebral/cortical visual impairment (CVI) is a leading cause of childhood visual impairment but remains underrecognized. CVI-related education, awareness, and visual dysfunction screening practices among family medicine physicians remain poorly characterized. This study evaluated CVI education and awareness, visual dysfunction screening, and referral practices among family medicine physicians. This present study evaluated whether similar patterns extend to family medicine physicians. Methods Nebraska family medicine physicians completed an anonymous 60-question electronic survey assessing CVI education and awareness, screening for visual dysfunction in children with neurologic disease, referral practices, and intended use of hypothetical screening tools. Results Fifty-seven responses were analyzed, with varying response numbers for each question. Fifty-four (98.2%) respondents reported no CVI education during residency/fellowship, and 51 (92.7%) reported no CVI continuing medical education. Forty-three (78.2%) respondents also expressed interest in future CVI education. Fifty (92.6%) were unaware of CVI diagnostic criteria, and 38 (70.4%) respondents reported screening for visual dysfunction in children with neurologic disease in 25% of encounters or less. Intended use was greater for shorter hypothetical screening approaches. Referral pathways and reported specialist availability varied. Conclusions Family medicine physicians reported limited CVI education and infrequent visual dysfunction screening. These findings suggest that opportunities to improve CVI education and recognition may extend across primary care specialties. This study also underscores potential opportunities for future efforts to improve recognition of children who may warrant further evaluation for 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.