ReviewSurvey of ophthalmology
Electrical devices for visual restoration.
Review in Survey of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sustained improvement in dark-adapted sensitivity but not BCVA after voretigene neparvovec treatment in a mainland Chinese child with biallelicFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Brain-Computer Interfaces for Vision Recovery in Precortical Vision Loss.Eye and brain · 2026Review
- Visual Neurorestoration: An Expert Review of Current Strategies for Restoring Vision in Humans.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Electric field stimulation directs target-specific axon regeneration and partial restoration of vision after optic nerve crush injury.PloS one · 2025Article
- Unlocking the potential for optic nerve regeneration over long distances: a multi-therapeutic intervention.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Fabrication and Characterization of a Flexible Thin-Film-Based Array of Microelectrodes for Corneal Electrical Stimulation.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Retinal ganglion cell repopulation for vision restoration in optic neuropathy: a roadmap from the RReSTORe Consortium.Molecular neurodegeneration · 2023Review
- Asymmetric charge balanced waveforms direct retinal ganglion cell axon growth.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Given the rising number of patients with blindness from macular, optic nerve, and visual pathway disease, there is considerable interest in the potential of electrical stimulation devices to restore vision. Electrical devices for restoration of visual function can be grouped into three categories: (1) visual prostheses whose goal is to bypass damaged areas and directly activate downstream intact portions of the visual pathway; (2) electric field stimulation whose goal is to activate endogenous transcriptional and molecular signaling pathways to promote neuroprotection and neuro-regeneration; and (3) neuromodulation whose stimulation would resuscitate neural circuits vital to coordinating responses to visual input. In this review, we discuss these three approaches, describe advances made in the different fields, and comment on limitations and potential future directions.
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.