Trial reportPloS one2016
Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 73 papers, 4 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.
Multicenter Study of Paraorbital-Occipital Alternating Current Stimulation Therapy in Patients With Optic Neuropathy
Treatment of Patients With Optic Nerve Damage Patients Using Electrostimulation: a Home Stimulation Study
Who cites it
73 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating visual defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical applications of electrical stimulation for peripheral nerve injury: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Non-invasive current stimulation in vision recovery: a review of the literature.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Adaptation to poststroke visual field loss: A systematic review.Brain and behavior · 2018Pooled it
- Phase 1b Randomized Controlled Study of Short Course Topical Recombinant Human Nerve Growth Factor (rhNGF) for Neuroenhancement in Glaucoma: Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Measure Outcomes.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Spacetime in the brain: rapid brain network reorganization in visual processing and recovery.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Non-invasive electrical brain stimulation for vision restoration after stroke: An exploratory randomized trial (REVIS).Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2021Trial
- [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
- Population-scale analysis of frequency-dependent calcium dynamics in retinal ganglion cells under electric field stimulation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Population-Scale Analysis of Frequency-Dependent Calcium Dynamics in Retinal Ganglion Cells Under Electric Field Stimulation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Brain-Computer Interfaces for Vision Recovery in Precortical Vision Loss.Eye and brain · 2026Review
- Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation for eye diseases and visual dysfunctions: A systematic review of RCTs.iScience · 2025Article
- Retinal Phosphenes Induced by Transorbital Electrical Stimulation: Influence of Light Adaptation, Electrode Montage, and View Direction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Eye yoga for glaucoma: recovery of vascular dysregulation and visual field function-a randomized controlled trial.The EPMA journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Transcorneal Electrical Stimulation Modulates Visual Pathway Function in Mice.Journal of neuroscience research · 2025Article
- Transcorneal electrical stimulation: impact on healthcare and future potential.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVision loss after optic neuropathy is considered irreversible. Here, repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) was applied in partially blind patients with the goal of activating their residual vision.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in an ambulatory setting with daily application of rtACS (n = 45) or sham-stimulation (n = 37) for 50 min for a duration of 10 week days. A volunteer sample of patients with optic nerve damage (mean age 59.1 yrs) was recruited. The primary outcome measure for efficacy was super-threshold visual fields with 48 hrs after the last treatment day and at 2-months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were near-threshold visual fields, reaction time, visual acuity, and resting-state EEGs to assess changes in brain physiology.
resultsThe rtACS-treated group had a mean improvement in visual field of 24.0% which was significantly greater than after sham-stimulation (2.5%). This improvement persisted for at least 2 months in terms of both within- and between-group comparisons. Secondary analyses revealed improvements of near-threshold visual fields in the central 5° and increased thresholds in static perimetry after rtACS and improved reaction times, but visual acuity did not change compared to shams. Visual field improvement induced by rtACS was associated with EEG power-spectra and coherence alterations in visual cortical networks which are interpreted as signs of neuromodulation. Current flow simulation indicates current in the frontal cortex, eye, and optic nerve and in the subcortical but not in the cortical regions.
conclusionrtACS treatment is a safe and effective means to partially restore vision after optic nerve damage probably by modulating brain plasticity. This class 1 evidence suggests that visual fields can be improved in a clinically meaningful way.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01280877.
Indexed as
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.