SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating visual defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain-Computer Interfaces for Vision Recovery in Precortical Vision Loss.Eye and brain · 2026Review
- Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation for eye diseases and visual dysfunctions: A systematic review of RCTs.iScience · 2025Article
- Review of brain-computer interface technology in ophthalmology: Current status, challenges and future directions.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluated the efficacy of applying repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rTACS) to patients suffering from visual defects, especially homonymous hemianopia.
backgroundStroke or optic neuropathy would result in vision loss or Visual field defect (VFD) and homonymous hemianopia. Recently, one of the commonly used procedures to relieve VFD is non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS).
methodsA comprehensive search covering publications in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus, spanning until September 2023 was performed. Relevant Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and their data were extracted and analyzed. Pooled mean difference (MD) was calculated for change in the high-resolution perimetry detection accuracy (HRP DA) and fixation accuracy (HRP FA), static automated perimetry foveal threshold (SAP FT), and visual acuity (VA) of near vision outcomes.
resultsWe pooled in our analysis 4 RCTs. Compared to the sham group, rTACS patients had a significantly higher HRP DA (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI [0.003,0.694] P = 0.048). However, the analysis did not favor any of the compared groups in HRP FA, SAP FT, VA of near vision, and mean threshold (SMD = 0.14; 95% CI [-0.21,0.48] P = 0.43], (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI [-0.11,0.45] P = 0.23), (SMD = 0.32; 95%CI [-0.24,0.88] P = 0.26), and (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI [-0.04,0.65] P = 0.08) respectively.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that rTACS exhibits a promising approach in homonymous hemianopia patients, where it significantly increased HRP DA. Despite the results' failure to attain statistical significance in some outcomes, it underscores the necessity for larger RCTs with longer follow-up periods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40119237What 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.