SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Charles Bonnet Syndrome associated with unilateral vision loss: A new diagnostic perspective.

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt · 2025-03-18

DOI: 10.1111/opo.13481PMID: 40099782

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Review; Journal Article; Case ReportsOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeTo increase recognition of Charles Bonnet Syndrome (CBS) beyond its conventional association with 'significant vision loss', which is indicated in the current literature as a diagnostic criterion.MethodsClinical observation of CBS associated with unilateral visual loss following enucleation due to choroidal melanoma. Comprehensive visual assessments were performed. The cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-BLIND. The phenomenology, occurrence and impact of visual hallucinations were evaluated using the University of Miami Parkinson's Disease Hallucinations Questionnaire (UM-PDHQ). A critical literature review of CBS cases associated with vision loss in one eye only was conducted.ResultsIn this case and in an additional nine reported cases in the literature, CBS hallucinations occurred following unilateral vision loss despite preserved visual function in the fellow eye. These hallucinations are phenomenologically consistent with those observed after severe bilateral vision loss, indicating that both conditions can lead to the development of CBS.ConclusionsCBS should be screened in all patients who have experienced any degree of vision loss.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.