Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27966032›Full record

Trial reportDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2017

[Transcorneal electrical stimulation in primary open angle glaucoma].

T Röck, L Naycheva, G Willmann, B Wilhelm, T Peters, E Zrenner, K U Bartz-Schmidt, F Gekeler, A Schatz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 64% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

T RöckDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
L NaychevaKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
G WillmannDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
B WilhelmSTZ eyetrial am Department für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
T PetersSTZ eyetrial am Department für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
E ZrennerDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
K U Bartz-SchmidtDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
F GekelerDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
A SchatzDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland. an.schatz@klinikum-stuttgart.de.
University of Tübingen · DEKlinikum Stuttgart · DEOphthalmology Clinic · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, reports have been published on the effectiveness of electrical stimulation in patients and experimental animal models with neurodegenerative ocular diseases. Our study included 14 patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), who were randomized into one of three groups with 0% (sham, n = 5), 66% (n = 5) or 150% (n = 4) of their individual electrical phosphene thresholds. Patients were treated with transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) for 30 min once a week for 6 consecutive weeks. Outcome measures of our study were the detection of possible adverse events and efficacy of TES using DTL electrodes in subjective and objective parameters of visual function under treatment. TES was tolerated well and no serious adverse events were registered relating to the treatment. One single adverse event was registered as appearance of an optic disc hemorrhage of a sham-stimulated eye. In summary, one significant increase of intra-ocular pressure in the 66% group was observed in comparison to the sham group (p = 0.04), without significant differences compared to the 150% group (both sham vs. 150% group and 66% vs. 150% group). This difference (mean difference compared to baseline of -2.33 mm Hg for the sham group and +0.97 mm Hg for the 66% group; REML) was not clinical meaningful. All other findings, including results of the visual field, were not statistically significant different between groups. It was shown that TES using DTL electrodes did not trigger adverse or serious adverse events in the stimulated groups in patients with POAG. Patients with POAG should currently receive TES only under study conditions.

Indexed as

CorneaAgedDouble-Blind MethodElectric Stimulation TherapyElectrodesFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVisual AcuityVisual FieldsNeuroprotectionPrimary open angle glaucomaTranscorneal electrical stimulationVisual acuityVisual function

Identifiers

PMID27966032
OpenAlexW3158505293

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.