An international study of nearly 1,000 people living with sight loss has found that almost one in five had encountered eye treatments they believed to be “bogus”. Led by researchers at University College London (UCL), the findings highlight the challenges patients face when navigating health information and commercial claims about emerging treatments.

Published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the study surveyed 955 adults with diagnosed eye conditions in the UK and US. Researchers examined how often participants encountered treatments they felt lacked sufficient scientific evidence or regulatory credibility, where they heard about them, and what influenced their decision to accept or reject treatment.

Overall, 19.1% of participants reported encountering treatments they believed to be bogus. Most decided not to proceed, although around one in four of those who encountered such treatments ultimately underwent them. The findings were based on patients’ perceptions and did not independently determine whether individual treatments were ineffective or scientifically unsupported.

Online advertising was a major source of exposure, reported by nearly 58% of participants who encountered these treatments. However, some participants first heard about a treatment during an appointment with an eye care professional. Those individuals were significantly more likely to undergo the treatment than people who encountered it through online advertising or marketing.

“Our results highlight the importance of clear and evidence-based communication between clinicians and patients as new therapies emerge and online marketing continues to expand across the world,” said Dr Lee Jones, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and the NIHR Clinical Research Facility at Moorfields Eye Hospital.

Dr Jones stressed that the research focused on patient perceptions rather than determining whether the treatments themselves were actually bogus. “What we’ve shown is the importance of helping patients to tell the difference between evidence-based treatments and unsupported company claims,” he said.

The treatments reported by participants covered a wide range of products and approaches, including nutritional supplements and vitamins, complementary and alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy, regenerative therapies including stem cell treatments, electromagnetic devices, and topical substances. Almost 80% of participants who rejected a treatment said they did so because they did not trust the claims being made, while others sought further advice from healthcare professionals.

Experiences among those who underwent treatment varied considerably. Some reported spending more than £10,000, while a small number experienced adverse effects, including worsening vision, increased visual symptoms or other health problems. The study also identified differences between countries, with participants in the US more likely than those in the UK to report both encountering these treatments and undergoing them.

More information: Lee Jones et al, Patient-Reported Exposure to Potentially Bogus Ophthalmic Treatments, JAMA Ophthalmology. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2026.4121

Journal information: JAMA Ophthalmology Provided by University College London