Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34219679›Full record

Trial reportRestorative neurology and neuroscience2021

Non-invasive electrical brain stimulation for vision restoration after stroke: An exploratory randomized trial (REVIS).

Silja Räty, Carolin Borrmann, Giuseppe Granata, Lizbeth Cárdenas-Morales, Ariel Schoenfeld, Michael Sailer, Katri Silvennoinen, Juha Holopainen, Francesca De Rossi, Andrea Antal and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Restorative neurology and neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01418820 (Paraorbital-Occipital Alternating Current Stimulation Therapy of Patients With Post-Chiasmatic Lesions), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.5field-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.

NCT01418820 phase2completednot on this map

Paraorbital-Occipital Alternating Current Stimulation Therapy of Patients With Post-Chiasmatic Lesions

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MagdeburgRan2011 to 2013Enrolled32ConditionsComplete Hemianopia, Incomplete Hemianopia, Scotoma, QuadrantanopiaArmsVerum stimulation, Placebo stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating visual defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Narrative Review of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Silja RätyHUS Neurocenter, Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Carolin BorrmannInstitute of Medical Psychology, Otto-v.-Guericke University of Magdeburg Medical Faculty, Magdeburg, Germany.
Giuseppe GranataInstitute of Neurology, Policlinic A. Gemelli Foundation-IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Lizbeth Cárdenas-MoralesInstitute of Medical Psychology, Otto-v.-Guericke University of Magdeburg Medical Faculty, Magdeburg, Germany.
Ariel SchoenfeldClinic of Neurorehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael SailerMEDIAN Klinik NRZ Magdeburg, An-Institut für Neurorehabilitation, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany.
Katri SilvennoinenHUS Neurocenter, Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Juha HolopainenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Francesca De RossiNational Centre of Services and Research for the Prevention of Blindness and Rehabilitation of Low Vision Patients - IAPB, Italian Branch, Rome, Italy.
Andrea AntalHUS Neurocenter, Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Paolo M RossiniDepartment Neuroscience & Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele-Pisana, Rome, Italy.
Turgut TatlisumakDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Bernhard A SabelInstitute of Medical Psychology, Otto-v.-Guericke University of Magdeburg Medical Faculty, Magdeburg, Germany.
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg · DEUniversity of Helsinki · FIAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITHelsinki University Hospital · FIIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITKliniken Schmieder · DESahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOccipital strokes often cause permanent homonymous hemianopia leading to significant disability. In previous studies, non-invasive electrical brain stimulation (NIBS) has improved vision after optic nerve damage and in combination with training after stroke.

objectiveWe explored different NIBS modalities for rehabilitation of hemianopia after chronic stroke.

methodsIn a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, three-armed trial, altogether 56 patients with homonymous hemianopia were recruited. The three experiments were: i) repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS, n = 8) vs. rtACS with prior cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the intact visual cortex (tDCS/rtACS, n = 8) vs. sham (n = 8); ii) rtACS (n = 9) vs. sham (n = 9); and iii) tDCS of the visual cortex (n = 7) vs. sham (n = 7). Visual functions were evaluated before and after the intervention, and after eight weeks follow-up. The primary outcome was change in visual field assessed by high-resolution and standard perimetries. The individual modalities were compared within each experimental arm.

resultsPrimary outcomes in Experiments 1 and 2 were negative. Only significant between-group change was observed in Experiment 3, where tDCS increased visual field of the contralesional eye compared to sham. tDCS/rtACS improved dynamic vision, reading, and visual field of the contralesional eye, but was not superior to other groups. rtACS alone increased foveal sensitivity, but was otherwise ineffective. All trial-related procedures were tolerated well.

conclusionsThis exploratory trial showed safety but no main effect of NIBS on vision restoration after stroke. However, tDCS and combined tDCS/rtACS induced improvements in visually guided performance that need to be confirmed in larger-sample trials.NCT01418820 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationBrainHemianopsiaHumansVision, OcularElectrical stimulationhomonymous hemianopiaoccipital strokerandomized controlled trialrehabilitationvision restoration

Identifiers

PMID34219679
PMCPMC8461672
OpenAlexW3175713018

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.