Iridology: Biological plausibility, clinical evidence, and implications for ophthalmic practice

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-026-07342-w
Primary Topic
Intraocular Surgery and Lenses
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Iridology: Biological plausibility, clinical evidence, and implications for ophthalmic practice

Daniele Veritti, Paolo Lanzetta, Lorenzo Iuliano
Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Intraocular Surgery and Lenses
article

Iridology: Biological plausibility, clinical evidence, and implications for ophthalmic practice

Daniele Veritti, Paolo Lanzetta, Lorenzo Iuliano
article en

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.

Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT), Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Ferrara (IT), Istituto Europeo di Microchirurgia Oculare (IT), Ospedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine (IT)
Università degli Studi di Udine
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Intraocular Surgery and Lenses
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.