Ocular Prosthetic Rehabilitation and Psychosocial Well-being in Acquired Anophthalmia: Evidence from a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Acquired anophthalmia results in permanent visual loss and facial disfigurement and is frequently associated with significant psychosocial consequences, including anxiety, depression, impaired self-esteem, and reduced quality of life. Ocular prosthetic rehabilitation is routinely employed to restore facial appearance; however, evidence regarding its psychosocial impact remains dispersed across heterogeneous study designs and outcome measures. This scoping review aimed to map, synthesize, and critically describe the available evidence on psychosocial outcomes associated with ocular prosthesis use in adults with acquired anophthalmia. The review was conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework, refined by Levac et al. , and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed from inception to August 2025, supplemented by searches of Google Scholar and reference lists. Eligible studies included original, peer-reviewed research assessing psychosocial outcomes in adults (≥18 years) using ocular prostheses following enucleation or evisceration. Data were charted on study design, population characteristics, prosthesis context, psychosocial outcome domains, measurement instruments, and key findings, with methodological quality descriptively appraised using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and risk of bias in nonrandomized studies - of interventions (ROBINS)-I. From 273 identified records, 11 studies published between 2003 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria, comprising cross-sectional, cohort, longitudinal, and retrospective designs, with a cumulative sample of 1506 participants. Quality of life was the most frequently assessed outcome, followed by anxiety, depression, and perceived stress or psychosocial adjustment. Most studies reported improvements in quality of life, social confidence, and psychosocial adjustment following ocular prosthesis use, particularly with early fitting and regular follow-up. However, persistent psychological distress and appearance-related concerns were reported in several cohorts. Overall, ocular prosthesis use is associated with generally favorable but variable psychosocial outcomes, underscoring the importance of structured follow-up and integrated psychosocial care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".