Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31476515›Full record

ArticleThe ocular surface2019

Chronic Electrical Stimulation for Tear Secretion: Lacrimal vs. anterior ethmoid nerve.

Andrea L Kossler, Mark Brinton, Zara M Patel, Roopa Dalal, Christopher N Ta, Daniel Palanker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The ocular surface, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. How Eyelid Changes May Impact on Tears.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Stimulating Tear Production: Spotlight on Neurostimulation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021
    Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea L KosslerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: akossler@stanford.edu.
Mark BrintonHansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Zara M PatelDepartment of Otolaryngology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Roopa DalalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Christopher N TaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Daniel PalankerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
Electronic Stimulator of Lacrimal GlandR01EY023259 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PALANKER, DANIEL V · 2013 to 2015
$1.4M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare the effect of lacrimal nerve stimulation (LNS) and anterior ethmoid nerve stimulation (AENS) on aqueous tear secretion, and tissue condition following chronic implantation.

methodsA neurostimulator was implanted in rabbits adjacent to the (1) lacrimal nerve, and (2) anterior ethmoid nerve. Tear volume was measured with Schirmer test strips after stimulation (2.3-2.8 mA pulses at 30 Hz for 3-5 min), and scores were compared to sham stimulation. Lacrimal gland and nasal septal tissue were evaluated histologically after chronic stimulation (2 weeks-7 months).

resultsLNS increases tear volume by 32% above sham (p < 0.05, n = 5), compared with 133% for AENS (p ≤ 0.01, n = 6). AENS also significantly increases tear secretion in the fellow, non-stimulated eye (p ≤ 0.01, n = 6), as expected from the tearing reflex pathway. Histologically, chronic LNS is well tolerated by surrounding tissues while chronic AENS results in nasal mucosal fibrosis and implant extrusion within 3 weeks.

conclusionsAENS is significantly more effective than LNS at enhancing aqueous tear secretion, including the fellow eye. The lacrimal implant is well tolerated, while the nasal implant requires further design optimization to improve tolerability.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalDry Eye SyndromesElectric StimulationLacrimal ApparatusMaleOphthalmic NerveRabbitsTearsAnterior ethmoid nerve stimulationDry eye diseaseElectrical stimulationIntranasal stimulationLacrimal gland stimulationNeurostimulation

Identifiers

PMID31476515
PMCPMC6952171
OpenAlexW2970156495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.