Trial reportScientific reports2025
Post hoc analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial suggests potential visual benefits of branched-chain amino acids in retinitis pigmentosa.
Trial report 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed and compensated for baseline differences in a randomized clinical trial of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Seventy patients with eyes showing a mean deviation (MD) of - 5.0 to - 25.0 dB in the Humphrey visual-field (HFA 10-2) test were included. Participants were administered BCAAs (TK-98) or a placebo for 78 weeks. We evaluated the reliability of the baseline screening HFA test, analyzed HFA data from 13 weeks after treatment initiation, and conducted a covariate-adjusted analysis. Eyes showed paradoxical improvement as the start of the clinical trial approached. The proportion of eyes demonstrating visual-field improvement in the eligibility screening test was higher in the TK-98 group than in the placebo group. Analysis of HFA 10-2 data from 13 weeks post-treatment, excluding screening data, showed slower decrease rates of total point score (TPS) and MD in the TK-98 group. After covariate adjustment, TPS and MD reductions tended to be slower in the TK-98 group than in the placebo group. The eligibility screening visual-field test could be affected by psychological factors, such as patients' concentration or motivation, leading to better-than-usual screening test results and making them less appropriate as baseline data.
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.