ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2025
Restoring Vision with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation: A Narrative Review.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural Vision Restoration in Ophthalmology.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Optimizing stimulation parameters: transpalpebral and transbrain electrical stimulation for retinal protection in RCS rats.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vision impairment resulting from defects in the visual pathway was once considered irreversible. The main barrier is the limited plasticity of the visual system after the critical period. However, as our understanding of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) deepens, its ability to enhance neural plasticity and regulate the neural system indicates a transformation in treatment and rehabilitation strategies. To verify the potential of NIBS in visual restoration, this review elaborates on the mechanisms underlying the immediate effects and aftereffects of NIBS with proofs from molecular, cellular, and systematic levels. The concept of neural oscillation is especially emphasized as it contributes greatly to cognition and can be interfered with by NIBS. Meanwhile, it discusses recent clinical findings on the use of NIBS, with or without visual perceptual learning, focusing on two key questions which have not been specified in previous reviews: (1) the duration of behavioral improvements, and (2) the optimal treatment period required for different visual functions and NIBS modalities. On the basis of the inconsistency in existing studies, this review is also devoted to optimizing the practical application of combining NIBS with VPL and concludes that the location, timing, and form of NIBS are crucial to achieving satisfying complementary effects.
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.