ArticleiScience2025
Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation for eye diseases and visual dysfunctions: A systematic review of RCTs.
Article in iScience, 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
Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation (NTBS) has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach for eye diseases and visual dysfunctions. This systematic review evaluates the evidence from 23 randomized controlled trials examining the application of NTBS, including transcranial electrical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation, in conditions such as amblyopia, myopia, visual field defects, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and blepharospasm. Studies assessed outcomes such as visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual perception, with variable effects observed across trials. Most studies reported no serious adverse events, indicating that NTBS is safe and feasible. However, conclusive evidence regarding its efficacy remains elusive due to varied interventions, inconsistent outcome measures, and methodological limitations. Future research with higher methodological rigor is needed to optimize stimulation parameters and explore integration with adjunctive therapies.
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.