ReviewClinical optometry2026
Global Prevalence and Clinical Consequences of Traditional Eye Medicine: A Descriptive Review.
Review in Clinical optometry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional eye medicine (TEM) is widely used in low- to middle-income countries as an accessible, affordable, and culturally accepted approach to eye care. Despite its prevalence, persons using TEM commonly present for formal late for eye care after the onset of significant ocular complications. Purpose: To synthesize evidence on global TEM utilization, perceptions, determinants, types, administration methods, and associated ocular complications. Methods: Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed and grey literature up to September 2025 were used to conduct a comprehensive literature search. Studies reporting on TEM use, perceptions, determinants, remedies, administration, and ocular outcomes were included. Fifty-seven studies met inclusion criteria following systematic screening. Results: TEM prevalence varied widely, from 4.3% in Nigeria to 80% in Ethiopia, with other regions reporting rates of 36-65.7%. TEM was used to manage redness, itching, tearing, pain, poor vision, cataracts, and glaucoma. Remedies included plant extracts, honey, rosewater, milk, salts, animal products, and ritualistic substances, administered topically, orally, dermally, nasally, auricularly, or in combination. Determinants of use include accessibility, affordability, cultural beliefs, family influence, rural residence, and dissatisfaction with modern medicine. Perceptions were generally positive, particularly among older adults and communities with active traditional healers (THs). TEM use was frequently linked to ocular complications such as conjunctivitis, corneal ulcers, microbial keratitis, uveitis, staphyloma, panophthalmitis, and blindness. TEM users often presented later to eye care facilities, resulting in poorer visual outcomes compared to non-users. Conclusion: TEM remains a culturally entrenched and widely used form of eye care but carries substantial risks of ocular morbidity and vision loss. Reducing harmful outcomes requires strengthening access to formal eye care, educating communities, and engaging THs to promote safe practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.