Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 21, 2026

Author Spotlight: Oral Candida Diagnosis to Advance Clinical Treatment Regimen for pSS Patients
05:26

Author Spotlight: Oral Candida Diagnosis to Advance Clinical Treatment Regimen for pSS Patients

Published on: March 1, 2024

1.9K

The Charles Bonnet Syndrome: a Systematic Review of Diagnostic Criteria

Ali G Hamedani1, Victoria S Pelak2

  • 1Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., 3 W. Gates Bldg., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. Ali.hamedani@uphs.upenn.edu.

Current Treatment Options in Neurology
|July 26, 2019
PubMed

Insights

This review found significant variation in diagnostic criteria for Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS), impacting research. Establishing unified criteria for CBS is crucial for consistent diagnosis and study outcomes.

Area of Science:

  • Neuro-ophthalmology
  • Clinical neurology
  • Psychiatry

Background:

  • Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is characterized by visual hallucinations in individuals with vision loss.
  • Current diagnostic criteria for CBS lack standardization.
  • This heterogeneity complicates research and clinical understanding of CBS.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically review and analyze the diagnostic criteria used for Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) in published literature.
  • To identify commonalities and discrepancies in existing CBS diagnostic criteria.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic literature search across 33 studies that specified diagnostic criteria for CBS.
  • Analysis of reported requirements for hallucinations and vision loss.
  • Examination of methods for excluding confounding neuropsychiatric disorders.

Main Results:

  • Hallucinations and vision loss are common requirements for diagnosing CBS.
  • Significant heterogeneity exists in the description of hallucination properties (formed vs. unformed) and vision loss severity.
  • Methods for excluding confounding neuropsychiatric disorders vary widely across studies.

Conclusions:

  • Considerable diagnostic heterogeneity for Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is present in the literature.
  • This variability impacts the reliability of observational and interventional studies on CBS.
  • There is a clear need for the development and adoption of unified diagnostic criteria for CBS.
Abstract

Keywords:
Charles Bonnet syndromeDiagnostic criteriaRelease hallucinationsSystematic reviewVision lossVisual hallucinations

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: A Focus on Standardized Salivary Gland Ultrasound Protocol in Connective Tissue Disease Research07:25

Author Spotlight: A Focus on Standardized Salivary Gland Ultrasound Protocol in Connective Tissue Disease Research

Published on: October 13, 2023

5.1K
Screening of Axonal Degeneration in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Using Ultrasonography and Nerve Conduction Studies06:40

Screening of Axonal Degeneration in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Using Ultrasonography and Nerve Conduction Studies

Published on: January 11, 2019

12.2K

Related Concept Videos

Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies01:30

Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies

Diagnosing acute coronary syndrome or ACS begins with a thorough patient history. Notable symptoms include central, crushing chest pain radiating to the left arm, neck, jaw, or back, along with shortness of breath, sweating (diaphoresis), nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and palpitations.It is crucial to note any history of cardiac illnesses and assess risk factors, including age, gender, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and a sedentary lifestyle.During physical examination, vital...
222
Irritable Bowel Syndrome II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Evaluation01:30

Irritable Bowel Syndrome II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Evaluation

Irritable Bowel Syndrome II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Evaluation
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is classified into subtypes based on the predominant bowel habits as determined by the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS). The subtypes are:
741
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
1.2K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:
1.1K
Review and Preview01:10

Review and Preview

In statistics, several tools are used to interpret the data. Measures of central tendency represent the characteristics of the data, such as mean, median, and mode. Additionally, measures of variance like standard deviation and range are used to find the spread of data from the mean. Relative standing measures the distance between data locations. Commonly used measures of relative standings are percentile, z score, and quartiles.
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
8.3K
Review and Preview01:13

Review and Preview

Data are individual items of information obtained from a population or sample. Data may be classified as qualitative (categorical), quantitative continuous, or quantitative discrete. Because it is not practical to measure the entire population in a study, researchers use samples to represent the population. A random sample is a representative group from the population chosen by using a method that gives each individual in the population an equal chance of being included in the sample. Random...
10.9K