ArticleScientific reports2024
The effect of duration between sessions on microperimetric biofeedback training in patients with maculopathies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- A Visual Telerehabilitation Program in Virtual Reality for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Randomized Feasibility and Proof-of-Concept Trial.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Harnessing Visual Neuroplasticity Through Auditory Biofeedback-Functional and Electrophysiological Gains Across Retinal, Optic-Nerve, and Cortical Visual Impairment: A Prospective Pilot Study.Clinics and practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim of this study was to explore the optimal training interval and times of microperimetric biofeedback training (MBFT) in maculopathies. Twenty-nine patients with maculopathies were divided into two groups: daily training (Group A) or alternate daily training (Group B). Both groups underwent 15 MBFT sessions. We compared the BCVA, reading speed, and fixation stability at baseline, after 5, 10, 15 sessions. After 15 sessions of MBFT, all visual parameters in both groups improved. There was a significant increase in BCVA after 5 sessions in both groups (P=0.016, and P<0.001 respectively), but Group A showed further improvement after 10 sessions (P<0.001). Regarding reading speed, Group A showed significant improvement from baseline after 15 sessions(P=0.020), Group B improved significantly after 5 sessions (P=0.047) and continued to improve after 10 sessions (P=0.030). Additionally, P1 and LgBCEA of Group A significantly improved after 10 sessions (P=0.001, and P=0.001 respectively), while Group B significantly improved after 5 sessions (P=0.002, and P<0.001 respectively). There was no significant difference in visual outcomes between the two groups (P>0.05) except LgBCEA (P=0.046) after 15 sessions. We concluded that the both MBFT frequencies are effective at improving vision and quality of life in patients with maculopathies. The alternate daily training group showed less time-dependent of improvement in all parameters and a greater benefit in fixation stability. Ten sessions are the optimal number of treatment sessions for alternate daily training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.