Article Text

This article has a Reply. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
The conclusions of Clemson et al concerning valproic acid are premature
  1. Mary J van Schooneveld1,
  2. L Ingeborgh van den Born2,
  3. Mies van Genderen3,
  4. Jan-Geert Bollemeijer4
  1. 1Academic Medical Centre (AMC) and the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  2. 2Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  3. 3Bartiméus Institute, Zeist, the Netherlands
  4. 4Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mary J van Schooneveld, AMC and NIN, Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 47, Amsterdam 1100 AC, the Netherlands; mjschoone{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read the article of Clemson et al1 about a new treatment for retinitis pigmentosa (RP) with great interest. However, the authors' claim that their data suggest that valproic acid (VPA) may be an effective treatment for RP is unfounded and also regrettably misleading for the many desperate RP patients. In fact, we are …

View Full Text


  • Linked articles 195768, 175356.

  • Competing interests None to declare.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • PostScript
    Christine M Clemson Radouil Tzekov Jenna M Checchi Mark Krebs Shalesh Kaushal
  • Clinical science
    C M Clemson R Tzekov M Krebs J M Checchi C Bigelow S Kaushal