SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2026
A systematic review of neuroprotective therapies for visual acuity preservation in retinitis pigmentosa.
Synthesis in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of neuroprotective therapies in improving best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Secondary outcomes investigated included electroretinogram measures (ERGs), adverse events and other relevant ophthalmological outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on PROSPERO. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched without date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials comparing neuroprotective interventions with any relevant comparator in typical RP and reporting BCVA outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2 and certainty of evidence graded using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcome reporting, narrative synthesis was undertaken.
results10 trials involving 1364 participants were included. Interventions included antioxidants, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) modulators, mechanical neurostimulation and omega-3 fatty acids. Across studies, no neuroprotective therapy demonstrated a clinically or statistically significant improvement in BCVA compared with control, with the exception of
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support the use of neuroprotective therapies to preserve visual acuity in RP. While some interventions show promise, including in secondary functional measures, robust conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity. Larger, standardised trials are required to validate the role of neuroprotection in RP.
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.