Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42347992›Full record

ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026

Iridology: Biological plausibility, clinical evidence, and implications for ophthalmic practice : A position paper of the Associazione Pazienti Malattie Oculari (APMO).

Lorenzo Iuliano, Daniele Veritti, Paolo Lanzetta

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lorenzo IulianoDepartment of Ophthalmology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6664-1327
Daniele VerittiDepartment of Medicine-Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Piazzale Santa Maria della Misericordia, 33100, Udine, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0148-5348
Paolo LanzettaDepartment of Medicine-Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Piazzale Santa Maria della Misericordia, 33100, Udine, Italy. paolo.lanzetta@uniud.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3746-141X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Iridology is an alternative diagnostic practice that claims to identify systemic diseases and organ dysfunction through visual inspection of iris features, including pigmentation patterns, crypts, furrows, and discolorations. Despite its continued presence within complementary and alternative medicine, iridology has not been incorporated into mainstream medical practice. This review critically examines iridology from an ophthalmologic perspective, addressing its historical origins and epistemological foundations, proposed mechanisms, biological plausibility, and clinical evidence. A systematic appraisal of the available literature, including the most recent government-commissioned evidence evaluation, demonstrates a consistent lack of diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and pathophysiological rationale. The ethical and clinical implications of iridology use are discussed, with particular attention to the risk of delayed diagnosis and patient misinformation. Based on the totality of evidence, iridology cannot be supported as a diagnostic or screening tool in ophthalmology or general medicine.

Indexed as

IrisIris DiseasesOphthalmologySocieties, MedicalHumansAlternative medicineDiagnostic accuracyEpistemologyEvidence-based medicineIridologyIrisOphthalmology

Identifiers

PMID42347992
PMCPMC13635041

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.