ArticleScientific reports2025
An exploratory study to evaluate efficacy and safety of frequent Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation for Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical stimulation (ES) may be effective for intractable retinal or optic nerve diseases. We studied frequent transcutaneous ES in a single-center, single-arm prospective study in patients with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) who carry the mitochondrial (mt) 11778 G > A mutation. A 30-min ES was applied to either eye every other day for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) at baseline and 1 week after completion of ES treatment. The secondary outcomes included changes in visual field; LogMAR; critical flicker frequency; and inner retinal thickness. Safety endpoints included the corneal endothelial cell density and complications during ES. Fourteen patients participated in the study; four dropped out. The median (interquartile range) LogMAR values before stimulation and 1, 4, and 8 weeks after ES were 1.60 (1.45-1.80), 1.70 (1.35-1.80), 1.60 (1.43-1.73), and 1.50 (1.43-1.73), respectively, indicating no significant improvement (primary outcome: Wilcoxon's signed rank test, p = 1.000, secondary outcome: Friedman test, p = 0.229). There were no improvements in any secondary efficacy endpoints and no complications. In conclusion, frequent transcutaneous ES did not improve visual acuity in patients with LHON carrying the mt11778 G > A mutation.
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.