In a recent editorial, Kaleb Abbott, OD, MS, FAAO, FOWNS, and Andrew D. Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO, FSLS, FBCLA highlight that the human tear film is a highly complex and dynamic secretion that supports ocular lubrication, immune defense, corneal epithelial nutrition, and maintenance of a smooth refractive surface. Despite this complexity, commonly used over-the-counter products labeled as “artificial tears” or “rewetting drops” lack the molecular architecture, biological functionality, and structural sophistication of natural human tears, providing only temporary symptomatic relief.
They argue that this terminology is outdated and misleading, as it implies these products can mimic or replace the natural tear film, which may shape unrealistic expectations, influence treatment decisions, and discourage appropriate use with contact lenses. Given advances in scientific understanding of tear film biology over the past two to three decades, the authors recommend retiring these terms in favor of “lubricating drops” to better align with current science and improve clarity in clinical communication and patient education.
“As our understanding of dry eye and the complexity of human tear film biology has evolved, it has become clear that the term ‘artificial tears’ is a misnomer that overstates biological equivalence and misrepresents the true function of these products,” Dr. Abbott told Ophthalmology 360.
Reference
Abbott KS, Pucker AD. It’s time to retire the terms artificial tears and rewetting drops: A call for accurate terminology and updated clinical usage in eye care. Ocul Surf. 2025;39:46-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2025.08.010. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41365270.
Related Content
