ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Corneal Neuro-Regenerative Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation in Rabbit Lamellar Keratectomy Model.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of efficacy and safety of quantum molecular resonance for treating meibomian gland dysfunction.Eye (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Review
- Neuropathic Corneal Pain and Blepharospasm: A Case Series.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Electrotherapy in the management of neuropathic corneal pain: narrative review.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Polyimide-Based Flexible Microelectrode Array for Non-Invasive Transcorneal Electrical Stimulation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) on corneal nerve regeneration in rabbits injured from superficial lamellar keratectomy (SLK). Methods: New Zealand White rabbits were used in this experimental study. To induce corneal nerve damage, SLK was performed using a 7.0-mm trephine. TES was applied for 28 days after the corneal nerve injury. Corneal sensitivity, Western blotting, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and immunofluorescence were performed to observe changes in the corneal tissue. Results: In the 2-Hz and 20-Hz electrical stimulation groups, the degree of corneal wound healing increased by more than 10% compared to the control group, but no significant difference was observed. Conversely, the electrical stimulation (2-Hz or 20-Hz) group showed significantly increased corneal sensitivity compared to the control group. Western blot analysis revealed that small proline-rich protein 1A (SPRR1a), a regeneration-associated protein was significantly increased in the 2-Hz group on days 1 and 7 compared to that in the other groups. Once again, nerve regeneration in the 2-Hz group was supported by the results of PCR, in which a significant increase in the nerve growth factor (NGF) on day 1 was observed compared with the other groups. Moreover, immunofluorescence after 28 days of electrical stimulation showed significant nerve regeneration in the 2-Hz group. Conclusions: TES promoted corneal nerve regeneration in rabbit SLK model. The application of electrical stimulation of 2-Hz frequency was more effective than the 20-Hz frequency, showing potential clinical applications for corneal diseases. Translational Relevance: This study shows how application of TES to the eyes that exhibit corneal nerve damage can improve corneal nerve regeneration examined by histologic analysis.
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.