ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2013
Transcorneal electrical stimulation in patients with retinal artery occlusion: a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled pilot study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Noninvasive electrical stimulation as a neuroprotective strategy in retinal diseases: a systematic review of preclinical studies.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Non-invasive current stimulation in vision recovery: a review of the literature.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- [Transcorneal electrical stimulation in primary open angle glaucoma].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Trial
- Spatiotemporal characteristics of visual cortical responses to transpalpebral electrical stimulation.iScience · 2026Article
- Modalities of vision restoration in optic neuropathies and retinal disease.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2026Review
- Article
- Transcorneal electrical stimulation: impact on healthcare and future potential.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Optic nerve-mediated modulation of temporally interfering electric fields for potential targeted retinal disease therapy: a computational modeling study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Non-Invasive Neuromodulation for Vision Restoration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2024Review
- Transcorneal electrical stimulation restores DNA methylation changes in retinal degeneration.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of transdermal electrical stimulation in patients with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.Bioelectronic medicine · 2023Article
- Electrical stimulation alters DNA methylation and promotes neurite outgrowth.Journal of cellular biochemistry · 2023Article
- Advances in transcorneal electrical stimulation: From the eye to the brain.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2023Review
- Transcorneal but not transpalpebral electrical stimulation disrupts mucin homeostasis of the ocular surface.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Direct modulation of microglial function by electrical field.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Article
- Neuroprotective Effects and Therapeutic Potential of Transcorneal Electrical Stimulation for Depression.Cells · 2021Review
- Ocular direct current stimulation affects retinal ganglion cells.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effect of Electrical Stimulation on Ocular Cells: A Means for Improving Ocular Tissue Engineering and Treatments of Eye Diseases.BioMed research international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) in patients suffering from retinal artery occlusion (RAO).
methodsTwelve patients with central and one patient with branch RAO (age 25-84 years, median 74 years) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, sham-controlled study. RAO was diagnosed 10 days to 17 months prior to study participation. Patients were treated with TES (5 ms positive followed by 5 ms negative biphasic pulses at 20 Hz; applied with DTL electrodes) for 30 min once a week for 6 consecutive weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to TES with 0 mA (sham, n = 3), 66% (n = 5) or 150% (n = 5) of the patient's individual electrical phosphene threshold (EPT) at 20 Hz. Best corrected visual acuity, ophthalmology examination and EPT (at 3, 6, 9, 20, 40, 60, and 80 Hz) were determined at baseline and at eight follow-up visits over 17 weeks. During four visits (week 1, 5, 9, and 17) kinetic and static visual fields as well as full-field and multifocal electroretinography were measured. The method of restricted maximum likelihood (P < 0.05, Tukey-Kramer) was used to estimate the development of parameters under treatment.
resultsTES was tolerated well; no ocular or systemic adverse events were observed except for foreign-body sensation after TES (n = 3). During the study period the slopes of the scotopic a-wave increased significantly (high-intensity flash white 10 cd.s/m(2); P = 0.03) in the 150% treatment group. All other parameters in all other groups remained statistically unchanged.
conclusionsAlthough TES was tolerated well, statistically significant improvements were found only for specific a-wave slopes. This is in contradiction to previous smaller, uncontrolled reports. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer duration might, however, show additional significant effects.
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.