Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26719667›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2015

Microcurrent stimulation in the treatment of dry and wet macular degeneration.

Laurie Chaikin, Kellen Kashiwa, Michael Bennet, George Papastergiou, Walter Gregory

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Direct modulation of microglial function by electrical field.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Neuroprotective strategies for retinal disease.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2018
    Review
  18. Restoring vision.Nature · 2018
    Review
  19. Electrical Stimulation as a Means for Improving Vision.The American journal of pathology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Laurie ChaikinPrivate practice, Alameda, CA, USA.
Kellen KashiwaRetina Institute of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Michael BennetRetina Institute of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
George PapastergiouCalifornia Retinal Associates, San Diego, CA, USA.
Walter GregoryClinical Trials Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Retina Institute of Hawaii · USCollege of Alameda · USRetina Associates · USUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the safety and efficacy of the application of transcutaneous (transpalpebral) microcurrent stimulation to slow progression of dry and wet macular degeneration or improve vision in dry and wet macular degeneration.

methodsSeventeen patients aged between 67 and 95 years with an average age of 83 years were selected to participate in the study over a period of 3 months in two eye care centers. There were 25 eyes with dry age-related macular degeneration (DAMD) and six eyes with wet age-related macular degeneration (WAMD). Frequency-specific microcurrent stimulation was applied in a transpalpebral manner, using two programmable dual channel microcurrent units delivering pulsed microcurrent at 150 µA for 35 minutes once a week. The frequency pairs selected were based on targeting tissues, which are typically affected by the disease combined with frequencies that target disease processes. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study or Snellen visual acuity (VA) was measured before and after each treatment session. All treatment was administered in a clinical setting.

resultsSignificant increases were seen in VA in DAMD (P=0.012, Wilcoxon one-sample test), but in WAMD, improvements did not reach statistical significance (P=0.059). In DAMD eyes, twice as many patients showed increase in VA (52%) compared to those showing deterioration (26%), with improvements being often sizeable, whereas deteriorations were usually very slight. In WAMD eyes, five of six (83%) patients showed an increase and none showed deterioration.

conclusionThe substantial changes observed over this period, combined with continued improvement for patients who continued treatment once a month, are encouraging for future studies. The changes observed indicate the potential efficacy of microcurrent to delay degeneration and possibly improve age-related macular degeneration, both wet and dry. However, this study has no control arm, so results should be treated with caution. Randomized double-blind controlled studies are needed to determine long-term effects.

Indexed as

macular degenerationmicrocurrentretinal diseasetranscutaneoustranspalpebral

Identifiers

PMID26719667
PMCPMC4689270
OpenAlexW2216312253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.