Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27643530›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of pathology2016

Electrical Stimulation as a Means for Improving Vision.

Amer Sehic, Shuai Guo, Kin-Sang Cho, Rima M Corraya, Dong F Chen, Tor P Utheim

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 160 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Longevity of visual improvements following transcorneal electrical stimulation and efficacy of retreatment in three individuals with retinitis pigmentosa.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2018
    Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Amer SehicDepartment of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: amer.sehic@odont.uio.no.
Shuai GuoDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kin-Sang ChoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rima M CorrayaDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Dong F ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tor P UtheimDepartment of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Ophthalmology, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway; Faculty of Health Sciences, University College of South East Norway, Notodden, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

VISION RESEARCHP30EY003790 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Patricia Ann D'Amore · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
The Molecular Basis Underlying Optic Nerve Growth in Development and RegenerationR01EY025259 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHEN, DONG FENG · 2016 to 2020
$3.2M
A Visual Assessment System for Retinal Function/Drug DiscoveryR41EY025913 · NEI · AFASCI, INC. · PI CHEN, DONG FENG, LUO, GANG · 2015 to 2015
$233k
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY003790NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025259NEI NIH HHS R41 EY025913
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolving research has provided evidence that noninvasive electrical stimulation (ES) of the eye may be a promising therapy for either preserving or restoring vision in several retinal and optic nerve diseases. In this review, we focus on minimally invasive strategies for the delivery of ES and accordingly summarize the current literature on transcorneal, transorbital, and transpalpebral ES in both animal experiments and clinical studies. Various mechanisms are believed to underlie the effects of ES, including increased production of neurotrophic agents, improved chorioretinal blood circulation, and inhibition of proinflammatory cytokines. Different animal models have demonstrated favorable effects of ES on both the retina and the optic nerve. Promising effects of ES have also been demonstrated in clinical studies; however, all current studies have a lack of randomization and/or a control group (sham). There is thus a pressing need for a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms that govern clinical success and optimization of stimulation parameters in animal studies. In addition, such research should be followed by large, prospective, clinical studies to explore the full potential of ES. Through this review, we aim to provide insight to guide future research on ES as a potential therapy for improving vision.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyAnimalsCatsDisease Models, AnimalHumansOptic NerveOptic Nerve DiseasesRabbitsRatsResearchRetinaRetinal DiseasesVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID27643530
PMCPMC5225285
OpenAlexW2521301622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.