Trial reportDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2017
[Transcorneal electrical stimulation in primary open angle glaucoma].
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss.Bioelectronic medicine · 2022Article
- Can neuroprotection effectively manage primary open-angle glaucoma? a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.