Preverbal visual assessment for screening cerebral visual impairment: Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility.
Karen L Harpster, Terry L Schwartz, Alaina Johnson and 3 others
PMID 41051012WHAT IT FOUND
A caregiver questionnaire for infants under two years caught almost every child who was later diagnosed with cerebral visual impairment.
However, it also flagged many who did not have it. Treat any concern on the form as a reason for a full eye and brain assessment.
Key findings
01When concern was defined as either 'area of concern' or 'continue to monitor', the questionnaire showed high sensitivity for detecting cerebral visual impairment, with the visual processing domain having the highest frequency of concern in diagnosed children.
02The questionnaire was not used as a stand-alone screening tool in this study; it was administered as part of a diagnostic evaluation for children already referred due to risk factors or existing diagnoses.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was retrospective and single-site. The sample was heavily skewed toward children with CVI (81 with, 17 without), which limits the ability to judge specificity. The PreViAs was not used as a true screening tool in the community; it was given to children already referred for concern. The group of children over 24 months was very small (13 total), making results for that age group unreliable. No adjustments were made for multiple statistical comparisons, increasing the risk of false-positive findings.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high sensitivity as evidence that the PreViAs is a precise diagnostic tool. It flagged 76% of children without CVI as having concern in the visual processing domain. A positive screen means a child needs a full diagnostic evaluation, not that they definitely have CVI.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →