Many sight loss patients encounter unproven or bogus eye treatments

An international study of almost 1,000 people living with sight loss, led by University College London (UCL) researchers, found that nearly one in five reported receiving or encountering eye treatments they believed to be 'bogus'.

The study, published in JAMA Ophthalmology, raises concerns in the eye health community around how patients must navigate an increasingly complex environment of health information and commercial treatment claims.

The study team, supported by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre: Moorfields, surveyed 955 adults with diagnosed eye conditions in the UK and US to gauge how often they came across treatments they perceived to have an insufficient scientific evidence base or regulatory credibility as well as where they encountered them and what influenced their decisions to accept or reject them.

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.

Online advertising for these treatments was reported by nearly 58% of participants 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.

The study was led by Professor Mariya Moosajee and Dr Lee Jones. Dr Jones, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and the NIHR Clinical Research Facility, Moorfields Eye Hospital, said: "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.

"Our study is about patient perceptions rather than whether the treatments really were bogus or not.

"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.

Almost 80% of the participants who turned down the treatment said they simply did not trust the claims being made. Others reported avoiding treatment after further advice from a healthcare professional.

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.