ReviewCureus2024
The Efficacy of Repetitive Transorbital Alternating Current Stimulation (rtACS) in Patients With Optic Nerve Damage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modalities of vision restoration in optic neuropathies and retinal disease.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optic nerve disorders significantly contribute to visual impairment with irreversible visual deficits. Current treatments have limited efficacy in resolving chronic visual deficits, necessitating novel therapeutic strategies. Neurorehabilitation techniques, including repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS), have emerged as promising approaches to restore lost visual function through the ability to modulate brain activity. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of rtACS remains inconclusive, warranting a systematic review to assess its potential as a therapeutic intervention for optic nerve-related visual deficits. This study exclusively evaluated the effectiveness of rtACS for visual field restoration in patients with optic nerve damage, including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the strict eligibility criteria. A thorough screening and data extraction process was conducted by independent reviewers, followed by a meta-analysis to assess the statistical significance and heterogeneity of the included studies. The improvement in the visual field in the rtACS compared to the sham group was the primary outcome, and visual acuity improvement was the secondary outcome. This study included three RCTs that evaluated the effects of rtACS compared to sham control in treating optic nerve damage. In regard to visual field (VF), the results revealed a significant improvement in the detection accuracy of the rtACS group compared to the control group, with a pooled mean difference of 32.06 [95% CI: 19.2, 51.2] (p=0.001, I2= 0%). The near and far vision revealed no statistically significant difference between both groups. Based on the systematic review, the use of rtACS shows a promising effect in improving the detection accuracy of the VF for patients with optic nerve damage, with a significant benefit over sham control. However, the effects on other visual outcomes were minimal, and safety data was limited. Further high-quality trials are needed to corroborate the findings and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy and safety for treating optic nerve-related visual deficits.
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.