Has any peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trial been published for MemoBlast or Memory Blast?

1. What the question is actually asking — product‑specific, peer‑reviewed RCTs

The user seeks whether a randomized controlled trial has been published in the peer‑reviewed literature that tests MemoBlast or Memory Blast as formulated; this is a narrow, product‑specific standard that requires a trial registered, executed, peer‑reviewed and published under that product name or clearly testing that finished formula — not merely trials of constituent ingredients or company claims ^[3].

2. What the reporting shows about MemoBlast/Memory Blast studies

A consumer‑facing review explicitly notes that MemoBlast’s ingredients include substances like Bacopa monnieri that have been studied, but that “the lack of clinical trials on MemoBlast itself limits its credibility” — an assertion that the reporting uses to conclude no product‑specific clinical trial is publicly available there ^[1]. A separate promotional page reiterates high user ratings and science‑backing language but does not supply or cite a peer‑reviewed RCT published in a scientific journal ^[2].

3. Company and marketing claims versus the peer‑reviewed record

Marketing materials for supplements commonly assert “science‑backed” formulations or internal testing; the consumer review points out the manufacturer’s statements about quality and testing but also flags that public, peer‑reviewed clinical evidence for the MemoBlast product is missing from the sources provided ^[1]. The promotional page amplifies efficacy claims and user testimonials without linking to peer‑reviewed randomized trials ^[2], and the reporting contains no citation to a journal article testing the finished product.

4. Why constituent‑ingredient studies don’t answer the question

Randomized trials of single botanicals or nutrients (e.g., Bacopa) can suggest potential mechanisms or modest effects, but product formulations combine doses and ingredients whose interactions and clinical outcomes should be evaluated together; the consumer review explicitly distinguishes ingredient‑level evidence from product‑level trials and notes the absence of clinical trials on MemoBlast itself ^[1]. Established guidance on evaluating RCTs and peer review underscores that trial design, registration and peer review matter for interpreting efficacy claims ^[3].

5. Context on RCT quality and why absence matters

The broader literature reminds that not all RCTs are equal — many published RCTs suffer methodological problems and reporting shortcomings even in mainstream medicine, meaning that the mere existence of a trial would require scrutiny for bias, registration and peer review quality before accepting claims ^[4]. Systematic reviews of peer‑review interventions and reporting standards further show the challenges in the biomedical publication ecosystem, reinforcing why a transparent, peer‑reviewed RCT for a commercial supplement is the appropriate high bar for efficacy claims ^[5].

6. Bottom line — what can be concluded from the provided reporting

Based on the sources supplied, there is no documentation that a peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trial has been published testing MemoBlast or Memory Blast as a finished product; consumer reporting explicitly notes a lack of clinical trials on the product itself and promotional pages do not cite peer‑reviewed RCTs ^{[1] [2]}. This answer is limited to the provided reporting: if an independently peer‑reviewed RCT exists elsewhere, it was not included among the supplied sources and therefore cannot be affirmed here ^[1].