Nearly one in five people living with sight loss reported receiving or encountering eye treatments that they thought were “bogus”.
The study, published in JAMA Ophthalmology,1 raises concerns around how patients must navigate an increasingly complex environment of health information and commercial treatment claims.
The study team surveyed almost 1,000 adults diagnosed with eye conditions in the United Kingdom and the United States to gauge how often they came across treatments they perceived to have an insufficient scientific evidence base or regulatory credibility.
They were also asked where they encountered them and what influenced their decisions to accept or reject them.
the results highlight the importance of clear and evidence-based communication between clinicians and patients as new therapies emerge
The survey found that 19.1% of participants reported encountering treatments they believed to be bogus. Most of the participants chose not to proceed with the treatment yet around one in four underwent the treatment.
Importance of Evidence-Based Communication
Most heard about the suspect treatments online, however some first heard about a treatment during an eye appointment with an eye care professional. These participants were significantly more likely to undergo the treatment than those who received online adverts and marketing.
Study leader Dr Lee Jones, from Moorfields Eye Hospital, said the study was “about patient perceptions rather than whether the treatments really were bogus or not”.
He said the results highlight the importance of clear and evidence-based communication between clinicians and patients as new therapies emerge and online marketing continues to expand.
“But what we’ve shown is the importance of helping patients to tell the difference between evidence-based treatments and unsupported company claims.”
The treatments reported by participants covered a broad area, including: nutritional supplements and vitamins; complementary and alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy; regenerative therapies including stem cell treatments and electromagnetic devices and topical substances.
For those who underwent treatment, patient experiences varied considerably. Some people reported spending over £10,000, while a small number described adverse effects including worsening vision, increased visual symptoms, or other health problems.
The study also found differences between countries. Participants in the US were more likely than those in the UK to report encountering these treatments and undergoing them.
Reference
- Jones L, Heinze N, Moosajee M. Patient-reported exposure to potentially bogus ophthalmic treatments. JAMA Ophthalmol. Published online September 24, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2026.4121.
