Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29354722›Full record

ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2017

Transcorneal electrical stimulation for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa: results from the TESOLAUK trial.

Siegfried K Wagner, Jasleen K Jolly, Maria Pefkianaki, Florian Gekeler, Andrew R Webster, Susan M Downes, Robert E Maclaren

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01847365 (Transcorneal Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Retinitis Pigmentosa - a Multicentre Safety Study of the Okustim® System), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% 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.

NCT01847365 nacompletednot on this map

Transcorneal Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Retinitis Pigmentosa - a Multicentre Safety Study of the Okustim® System

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2013 to 2015Enrolled14ConditionsRetinitis PigmentosaArmsTranscorneal electrical stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Clinical Perspectives and Trends: Microperimetry as a Trial Endpoint in Retinal Disease.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2021
    Review
  19. An update on retinal prostheses.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Review
  20. The Use of Electrotherapeutics in Ophthalmology.American journal of ophthalmology · 2020
    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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Siegfried K WagnerNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jasleen K JollyNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Maria PefkianakiMoorfields Eye Hospital-UCL Institute of Ophthalmology NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Florian GekelerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Andrew R WebsterMoorfields Eye Hospital-UCL Institute of Ophthalmology NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Susan M DownesNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert E MaclarenNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Moorfields Eye Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBKlinikum Stuttgart · DEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the impact of weekly transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) over a 6-month period as a treatment for retinitis pigmentosa (RP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective open-label observational trial was carried out assessing weekly TES in participants with RP for a period of 6 months followed by observation for a further 6 months. Clinical examination and investigations were carried out at 3 monthly intervals for a total of 12 months. The primary outcome measure explored safety through a descriptive analysis of adverse effects with secondary outcome measures evaluating structural and functional efficacy.

resultsSeven male and seven female participants with RP aged 18-80 years were recruited. TES was well tolerated with no serious adverse events reported. Two participants reported transient foreign body sensation and one participant had discomfort underneath the skin electrode. Following 6 months of TES, best-corrected visual acuity increased by 1.1±1.4 letters in the control arm and 0.93±1.4 letters in the treated arm. Central microperimetry threshold sensitivity rose by 0.02±0.5 decibels (dB) and 0.37±0.4 dB and Goldmann visual field volume by 0.16±0.09 steradians (sr) vs 0.22±0.12 sr for the control and treated eye, respectively. There was no statistical significance seen between eyes following the treatment or observation period.

conclusionThis small open-label clinical trial showed that TES was safe and well tolerated in patients with RP. Visual function measurements at 6 months demonstrated no significant difference between the control and treated eyes. The results justify a larger clinical trial over a longer period of time in order to identify any treatment effect.

Indexed as

clinical trialdegenerationgeneticsretinatreatment other

Identifiers

PMID29354722
PMCPMC5751865
OpenAlexW2569893629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.