Has keryleaf been evaluated in peer-reviewed clinical trials for tinnitus?

1. No evidence in the supplied trial listings that Keryleaf has been trialed

I reviewed the clinical trial and research pages included in your search results — the American Tinnitus Association clinical-trials pointer, regional university trial lists, and the EU registry — and none of these references mention a therapy or product called “Keryleaf.” The ATA points users to ClinicalTrials.gov for tinnitus studies but does not list Keryleaf ^[1]. The EU Clinical Trials Register likewise shows many tinnitus trials but does not identify Keryleaf in the snippets provided ^[3]. Therefore, available reporting in these sources does not document peer‑reviewed clinical trials of Keryleaf (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What the sources do show: active, peer‑reviewed research on other tinnitus treatments

The documents supplied show active, peer‑reviewed clinical research in tinnitus — for example, Lenire (a bimodal neuromodulation device) has multiple large-scale trials reported and is cited as having been independently peer‑reviewed and used in TENT-A1, A2 and A3 studies that supported regulatory approval activities ^{[2] [4]}. Other sources mention randomized trials of digital therapeutics and prototype polytherapeutics reported in academic journals ^[5]. These examples demonstrate the kinds of peer‑reviewed trial evidence that would typically be expected if Keryleaf had undergone formal evaluation ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Registry and academic coverage are the key places to seek confirmation

For verifiable evidence of a product’s peer‑reviewed clinical evaluation you should expect to find: (a) a registered trial entry on ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, or a university/hospital registry, and (b) publications in peer‑reviewed journals reporting results. The search results include multiple registry portals and trial summaries (ClinicalTrials.gov pointers, UC Irvine/UCBraid listings, EU register), but none of the supplied entries or snippets link Keryleaf to a registered protocol or journal article ^{[1] [6] [7] [3]}. Thus the absence of Keryleaf in these sources is notable (not found in current reporting).

4. Alternative explanations and limitations of the available reporting

There are several plausible reasons the supplied sources don’t mention Keryleaf: the product may be very new, evaluated only in proprietary or unpublished studies, studied outside the jurisdictions and registries excerpted here, or marketed under a different name. The materials you provided include many recent trials and device approvals (through 2025) but do not cover every possible registry or publication venue; therefore absence in this set is not proof Keryleaf has never been tested, only that these sources make no mention of such trials (not found in current reporting) ^{[2] [4]}.

5. How to confirm rigorously whether Keryleaf has been peer‑reviewed

To confirm definitively, consult (and cite) the following directly: search ClinicalTrials.gov and the EU/CTIS registry for “Keryleaf” or related sponsor names; search PubMed, Google Scholar and journal databases for peer‑reviewed articles naming Keryleaf; and review company press releases or regulatory filings for trial identifiers that can be cross‑checked against registries. The materials provided already point to these authoritative sources as the standard places tinnitus trials are registered and published ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

6. Bottom line (what readers should take away)

Based on the supplied search results, there is no documented, peer‑reviewed clinical-trial evidence for a tinnitus therapy called “Keryleaf” in these sources; other tinnitus interventions (for example, Lenire and several digital or device trials) are explicitly documented and published in the referenced materials ^{[2] [5] [4]}. If you want a definitive finding, provide the product’s manufacturer or a trial identifier and I will check the listed registries and publications referenced above ^{[1] [3]}.