Awareness of the ocular harm of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is inadequate 1, despite ample research showing that eyelids and eyes are highly susceptible to UVR damage 2. UVR is a risk factor for multiple ocular diseases, including eyelid cancers, cataracts, macular degeneration, pterygium and photokeratitis 2. Widespread misinformation about ocular UVR protection creates public misconceptions 3. This review aimed to qualitatively assess the content of online misinformation related to sunglasses. A literature search on PubMed was conducted from January to July 2025 using the search criteria ‘sunglasses’ AND (‘misinformation’ OR ‘disinformation’ OR ‘conspiracy’). No papers were deemed appropriate for inclusion. An informal Google search was carried out using combinations of these terms (e.g., ‘sunglasses misinformation’, ‘sunglasses conspiracy’ etc.) and the first 10 pages of each combination were reviewed. Targeted searches were also carried out on Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and Reddit using combinations of the above terms. Categories were developed through an inductive coding process, in which recurring themes in the data were identified and iteratively grouped based on conceptual similarity. Categories of misinformation included: the mistaken idea that sunglasses are harmful; the misconception that sunglasses are ineffective; and inaccurate information regarding sunglass quality (Figure 1). Multiple users claimed that wearing sunglasses harms eye health. Posts suggested that sunglasses can cause floaters, macular degeneration, myopia and glaucoma. Some users promoted sunlight as ‘healing’, and that sunglasses prevent the body from absorbing healthy UVR through the eyes. Some posts misattributed endocrine dysfunction to the use of sunglasses. Several users recommended ‘sungazing’, which involves staring directly at the sun. Another myth, particularly common on TikTok and Reddit, was that sunglasses can lead to sunburn and skin cancer. Users claimed that sunglasses prevent the eyes from sending signals to the skin to ‘close up receptor sites’, resulting in sunburn. There is no scientific basis for these claims. Instead, sunglasses protect eyes and periorbital skin from UVR-induced damage 4. Many posts incorrectly identified sunglasses as ineffective. One post suggested that SPF application on the periorbital area eliminated the need for sunglasses. While SPF is important for protecting periocular skin, only sunglasses blocking 100% of UVR protect the eyes 4. Some users stated that wearing a hat provided superior UVR protection for the eyes than sunglasses. Although helpful, the eyes are vulnerable to UV reflected from the ground, and hats will not protect against this reflected UVR. Sunglass quality was also subject to misinformation. Some users on Instagram and Reddit claimed that scratched sunglasses provide the same level of UVR protection. This arises from misunderstanding the difference between sunglasses with UVR protection embedded in the lens versus those relying on a UVR-repellent surface coating. When the coating is scratched, protective properties are compromised, leaving the eyes vulnerable to harmful UVR 4. While many online sources advised sunglasses blocking 100% of UVR, several key protective features were frequently overlooked. For instance, larger lenses provide better UVR protection, covering more of the eyes and periorbital skin 4. Additionally, some sources proposed that darker lenses provide better UVR protection. Dark lenses without adequate UVR filtering can increase UVR exposure by causing pupillary dilatation 4. Misinformation about UV eye protection is rampant and poses a real risk to public health. Given the cumulative nature of ocular UVR damage and the prevalence of preventable ocular diseases, it is crucial that the public is educated about proper ocular UVR protection. Sunglasses that block 100% of UVR should be promoted as an essential protective measure, alongside sunscreen. Limitations of this qualitative, non-systematic review include the lack of a standardized protocol for exploring available misinformation. The results should be interpreted as an illustrative mapping of the most prevalent themes of disinformation, rather than as an exhaustive study. Research has shown that misinformation is often driven by ‘lazy thinking’ rather than partisan bias, meaning that many individuals may not critically evaluate the information they consume online 5. With misinformation so easily accessible, efforts must be made to ensure that individuals understand the risks of ocular UVR exposure and the importance of proper protective measures. A. M. O'Leary, C. O'Connor, and M. Murphy conceived of the study. A. M. O'Leary wrote the first draft. A. M. O'Leary and C. O'Connor created the figure. A. M. O'Leary, C. O'Connor and M. Murphy reviewed and revised further drafts. The authors have nothing to report. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
O'Leary et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: