Herbs & Botanicals · Herbs · Traditional European eye herb, with very little human research

Eyebright

Q: Does eyebright work for conjunctivitis?

We cannot say. One open study of manufactured Euphrasia drops in 65 adults found most recovered, but it had no comparison group, and pink eye often clears without treatment. The EU committee found no adequate evidence. Antibiotics help only bacterial conjunctivitis, so it is worth having the cause checked.

Q: Is it safe to use eyebright tea as an eye wash or compress?

No. The EU herbal committee said external eye use of homemade preparations is not hygienic and not safe. Homemade preparations cannot be made sterile, and the FDA links contaminated eye products to infection and vision loss. We found no eyebright-specific infection case report, so the exact risk is unknown.

Q: Are eyebright eye drops from a shop safe?

Manufactured drops were used in two small studies with no serious side effects reported, but the studies were too small to prove safety. Many are homeopathic-type products; the FDA says eye products labelled homeopathic are not approved. Ask an eye doctor or pharmacist before using any eye drop.

Q: Does eyebright help premature babies with sticky eyes?

A trial of 84 premature babies found no significant difference from saline on the main outcome. Babies under 30 days old with red sticky eyes need a doctor.

Q: Does eyebright help eye allergies?

Unknown. A 2003 review names it among herbs tested in eye allergy, but the abstract does not report results.

Q: What does the EU say about eyebright?

In 2010 the EU herbal committee decided that no herbal monograph could be set. It said the efficacy of the claimed uses is undocumented and that homemade eye preparations are not hygienic or safe. No newer EU statement was found.

Q: Can I take eyebright by mouth or use it for colds?

That use is traditional only. The EU committee found no adequate data, and we found no human safety studies of oral use. Ask a doctor or pharmacist about amounts and about your own situation.

Q: Is eyebright safe in pregnancy or breastfeeding?

Unknown. We found no human data, the EU report says reproductive toxicity tests were not performed, and LactMed has no entry we could find. Avoid it unless your doctor agrees.

Q: Does eyebright interact with medicines?

No interaction has been reported, but none has been studied. A rat study found lower blood sugar, so ask a doctor if you take diabetes medicine. Do not mix it into eye medicines.

Q: Can eyebright cause liver or allergy problems?

We found no case report of either, and no LiverTox entry. That is a gap in research, not proof of safety.

Euphrasia officinalis L. (an aggregate of closely related species, including E. rostkoviana Hayne and E. stricta) · also called Eyebright, Augentrost (German), euphraise (French), ojo brillante (Spanish)

Eyebright is a small European plant. Its dried above-ground parts have been used for centuries as a tea or eye wash for sore eyes. Two small studies of manufactured eye drops exist, and the EU herbal committee found no adequate evidence for the traditional uses. It advised against homemade preparations in the eye, because they cannot be made sterile.

General information, not medical advice. Last substantive update October 25, 2026 · Not medically reviewed. A named clinician has not signed off on this page. How this page is made

About Eyebright

Eyebright (Euphrasia officinalis aggregate) is a small European plant whose dried above-ground parts have been used on the eyes since at least the 14th century. Human research is small: one open study of manufactured drops in 65 adults and one placebo-controlled trial in 84 premature babies. The EU herbal committee found no adequate evidence for the traditional uses and advised against homemade eye preparations.

What it is

Eyebright is a small herb of the family Orobanchaceae. The dried above-ground parts are used, usually as a fresh tea, a tincture, or in manufactured eye drops.

The plant name is a moving target. Botanists disagree about where one Euphrasia species ends and another begins, and the EU report calls Euphrasia officinalis an ambiguous name. Species differ in their chemistry, so a product label should name the species. The main compounds are flavonoids, an iridoid called aucubin, phenolic acids and tannins.

^{7 12 5 8 17}

Traditional and current uses

Texts from about 1300 onward describe eyebright for diseases of the eye. Tea was made fresh and used as a compress or rinse. Tea or tincture by mouth, and a nasal ointment, were used for colds.

Today it appears mostly as manufactured eye drops, many of them homeopathic or anthroposophic types. The FDA says eye products labelled homeopathic should not be marketed in the US and are not approved.

^{5 18 19}

What the research shows

A 2000 study followed 65 adults with conjunctivitis who used manufactured Euphrasia drops. Most (81.5%) recovered fully, but nobody was given a dummy treatment, and many cases of pink eye clear up alone. The EU committee judged the study of limited value.

A 2020 trial in 84 premature babies with eye discharge compared Euphrasia drops with saline. The main result was 55.0% vs 51.2% (not significantly different). Both studies were done by groups linked to anthroposophic medicine, and the babies' drops were made by Weleda.

Everything else is laboratory or animal work, or tradition.

^{18 10 5}

At a glance

Traditional uses history, not proof

Tea used as an eye compress or wash for conjunctivitis, sore eyelids, styes and tired eyes
Tea or tincture by mouth, and a nasal ointment, for colds and a runny nose
Homeopathic and anthroposophic eye drops (a modern manufactured form)

Studied for research

Conjunctivitis (manufactured drops, open study, no comparison group), very low
Eye discharge in premature babies (manufactured drops vs saline, no clear difference), low
Eye allergy: named in a 2003 review, no result in the abstract, insufficient
Eye-cell, antioxidant, germ-slowing and nerve-cell findings: laboratory only
Blood sugar: one rat study only

Main compounds

Flavonoids (apigenin, luteolin, quercetin, kaempferol)
Iridoid glycosides, mainly aucubin (about 0.05% in one report)
Phenolic acids (caffeic and chlorogenic acid) and tannins
A small amount of essential oil in some species

Common forms

Fresh tea (infusion) of the dried herb
Tincture (alcohol extract)
Manufactured single-dose eye drops, often homeopathic-type
Nasal ointment made with the tincture (traditional)

Research links: Regulator: EU herbal committee public statement on eyebright (2010) · Trial: Euphrasia eye drops in preterm babies (2020) · Study: Euphrasia eye drops in conjunctivitis (2000) · Research Library · Genes & Biomarkers Library

The plant and its history

Accepted scientific name: Euphrasia officinalis L.
Naming authority: ACCEPTED in the GBIF backbone (key 8106874; Sp. Pl.: 604, 1753). The commonly sold plant is a group of closely related species ('aggregate'); the EU report names Euphrasia officinalis L. and Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne. GBIF treats E. rostkoviana Hayne as a synonym that points to the accepted subspecies Euphrasia officinalis subsp. pratensis (key 7494089).
Synonyms: Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne (GBIF synonym of E. officinalis subsp. pratensis); Euphrasia stricta (E. stricta J.P.Wolff ex J.F.Lehm. is a separate accepted species in GBIF; the EU report treats 'E. stricta' as an alternative name)
Common names: eyebright (English); Augentrost (German); euphraise, casse-lunettes (French); ojo brillante (Spanish); ogentroost (Dutch)
Botanical family: Orobanchaceae (GBIF). The 2010 EU report gives the older family Scrophulariaceae.
Classification: Plantae > Tracheophyta > Magnoliopsida > Lamiales > Orobanchaceae > Euphrasia > Euphrasia officinalis
Native range: Not verified in the sources read (the EU report describes E. stricta as a well-known European species).
Habitat: Not verified.
What the plant looks like: Roots: Not verified; eyebright is a small annual herb (not confirmed in sources read).; Stems: Euphrasia stricta is described as 2 to 40 cm high (EU report).; Leaves: E. stricta can be told from E. officinalis by curved hairs on the tops of the leaves (EU report).; Flowers: The herb is collected in flower (German pharmacopoeia description in the EU report).; Fruit: Not relevant.
Cultivation: Not verified.
Harvest and processing: The EU report describes the dried aerial parts, collected in flower; one handbook says harvested before flowering. The sources disagree.
Look-alikes and adulterants: Name: Euphrasia stricta, E. nemorosa and other Euphrasia species; Note: Sold and used interchangeably; their phenolic chemistry differs, and the genus classification is contradictory (EU report; Gawenda-Kempczynska 2022).
Sustainability and conservation: Not assessed in the sources read.

Traditional use and history history, not clinical proof

Tradition or era	Documented use	Source
Medieval Europe (about 1300 onward)	Described as curing 'all evils of the eye' in the 14th century; named in a 1305 text; eye waters and syrups.	s-ema-hmpc-assessment
19th-century European floras and homeopathy	Listed in botanical and medical books, including Hahnemann's 1826 materia medica, for eye and catarrh complaints.	s-ema-hmpc-assessment
Anthroposophic medicine, 20th century	Eye drops from Euphrasia rostkoviana used for more than 70 years, according to the authors of the 2000 cohort study.	p11152054
EU regulation, 2010	HMPC concluded no monograph can be established; eye use of homemade preparations not recommended.	s-ema-hmpc-statement

Traditional use shows how a plant was used. It does not show that a supplement works or is safe today.

What is inside, and how it may work

What the plant contains and how those compounds act in cells and animals. Laboratory and animal mechanisms are not proven effects in people.

Main compounds

Compound	Family	Where it is concentrated	Activity studied	Level of evidence
Aucubin PubChem 91458	iridoid glycoside	Herb About 0.05% (EU report quoting Blazics 2008)	The EU report proposes anti-inflammatory activity from iridoids; not tested here. ^{5 17}	Pharmacological theory
Apigenin PubChem 5280443	flavonoid	Herb Flavonoids together about 0.38% (EU report)	Not tested alone in the sources read. ^{5 17}	Laboratory research
Luteolin PubChem 5280445	flavonoid	Herb Part of the 0.38% flavonoids	Not tested alone. ^{5 17}	Laboratory research
Quercetin PubChem 5280343	flavonoid	Herb Part of the 0.38% flavonoids	Not tested alone. ^{5 17}	Laboratory research
Kaempferol PubChem 5280863	flavonoid	Herb Part of the 0.38% flavonoids	Not tested alone. ^{5 17}	Laboratory research
Caffeic acid and its sugar and ester compounds PubChem 689043	phenolic acid	Herb Hydroxycinnamic derivatives about 1.97% (EU report quoting Blazics 2008)	A glycosylated caffeic acid fraction had the strongest antioxidant activity in test tubes. ^{3 5 17}	Laboratory research
Chlorogenic acid PubChem 1794427	phenolic acid	Herb Not given separately	Not tested alone. ^{5 17}	Laboratory research
Tannins	polyphenols	Herb About 0.56% (EU report)	The EU report proposes an astringent action; not tested for eyes. ⁵	Pharmacological theory
Essential oil (hexadecanoic acid, thymol, linalool, anethole)	volatile oil and fatty acids	Aerial parts (not stated in abstract) Hexadecanoic acid 18.47%, thymol 7.97%, linalool 4.65%, anethole 4.09% of the oil	Slowed most tested microbes in the test tube. ¹⁵	Laboratory research

Mechanisms, receptors and pathways

Target or pathway	Gene or receptor	What was found	Level
Inflammatory messengers (IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-10)	IL1B, IL6, TNF, IL10	Ethanol and ethyl acetate extracts lowered the output of these proteins by human corneal cells in a dish. ¹⁶	Laboratory research
Oxidative stress and COX-2 / iNOS in UVB-exposed corneal cells	PTGS2 (COX-2), NOS2, HMOX1, SOD2, GSS	A chamomile plus Euphrasia drop lowered reactive oxygen species and COX-2, IL-1 beta and iNOS activity and improved wound healing in cells. ²	Laboratory research
Radical scavenging		Caffeic acid and flavonoid fractions neutralised ABTS and DPPH radicals. ³	Laboratory research
Cholinesterase enzymes and amyloid-beta toxicity	ACHE, BCHE	Extracts were tested for cholinesterase blocking and raised survival of nerve-type cells exposed to amyloid-beta by 17.5 to 22.6%. ²⁰	Laboratory research
Microbe growth		Essential oil slowed all microbes tested except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. ¹⁵	Laboratory research
Astringent and anti-inflammatory action (proposed)		The EU report hypothesises astringent action from tannins and anti-inflammatory action from iridoids but found no data on either for eye use. ⁵	Pharmacological theory
Blood glucose		An aqueous extract lowered blood sugar in diabetic rats (reported by the EU report). ⁵	Animal research

Absorption, metabolism and elimination

Absorption: No data. The EU report lists pharmacokinetic data as not available.
Distribution: No data.
Metabolism: No data.
Elimination: No data.
Bioavailability: Unknown. Whether any compound reaches the eye tissue from a tea or drop has not been studied in the sources read.

⁵

Isolated compounds versus whole extracts

No single compound has been shown to explain a benefit. Results depend on how the extract is made: in corneal cells the heptane extract was toxic and did not scavenge radicals, while ethanol and ethyl acetate extracts did. Different Euphrasia species also differ in their chemistry, so a result from one extract or species does not transfer to another.

Nutritional composition

Eyebright is used as a herb, not as a source of nutrients. No nutrient values were read.

10benefits and uses looked at

20studies and sources checked

Low certaintybest evidence rating found

6lab markers tracked in trials

1 low certainty5 very low certainty4 not enough evidence

What was looked at

The 10 benefits and uses checked for Eyebright, each with how strong the evidence is. Tap one to open it.

Tired, irritated or sore eyes, eyelid inflammation and styes (traditional use)Not enough evidence
Conjunctivitis (pink eye) treated with manufactured Euphrasia eye dropsVery low certainty
Eye discharge in premature babies (Euphrasia drops compared with saline)Low certainty
Eye allergy symptomsNot enough evidence
Calming and protective signals in eye-cell laboratory studiesVery low certainty
Colds and runny nose (traditional use)Not enough evidence
Blood sugar (rat study only)Not enough evidence
Nerve-cell protection and memory (laboratory only)Very low certainty
Germ-slowing effect in the test tubeVery low certainty
Antioxidant activity in test tubesVery low certainty

Lab markers tracked in the studies

Eye discharge cleared without antibiotics (preterm babies)Redness and tearing in the babies' eyesConjunctivitis symptoms (redness, swelling, secretion, burning, foreign-body feeling)Inflammation messengers made by corneal cells (IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-10)Blood glucose (rats)Survival of nerve-type cells exposed to amyloid-beta

What is Eyebright good for?

The main proposed uses and how strong the human evidence is for each. 'Insufficient' means no adequate human trial was found. Rows based only on tradition or lab work are marked that way.

Conjunctivitis (pink eye), with manufactured dropsVery low certaintyAn open study of 65 adults using manufactured Euphrasia drops found most recovered within about two weeks. With no comparison group, this cannot show the drops caused the recovery. Eye discharge in premature babiesLow certaintyIn a placebo-controlled trial of 84 premature babies, Euphrasia drops did not beat saline on the main result (55.0% vs 51.2%). Small differences in redness and tearing were not statistically significant. Sore, tired or irritated eyes, eyelid inflammation and styes (tea or compress)Not enough evidenceLong European tradition only. The EU committee found no adequate data and advised against homemade eye preparations. Eye allergyNot enough evidenceA 2003 review names Euphrasia among herbs tested in controlled studies of eye allergy. The abstract gives no results. Colds and runny nose (by mouth or nasal ointment)Not enough evidenceTraditional use. The EU committee found no adequate data. Calming inflammation in eye cellsVery low certaintySome extracts lowered inflammation signals in cultured eye-surface cells and a chamomile-plus-Euphrasia drop protected cells from UV light. These are dish results only. Fighting eye infectionsVery low certaintyA distilled eyebright oil slowed most eye-infection germs in a test tube. This does not show that tea or drops treat an infection. Blood sugarNot enough evidenceA water extract lowered blood sugar in diabetic rats. No human study exists. Memory and nerve-cell protectionVery low certaintySome extracts kept more nerve-type cells alive in a dish. Not tested in animals or people. Antioxidant actionVery low certaintyExtracts neutralise free radicals in test tubes. This is chemistry, not a proven health benefit.

Benefits, one by one

Each card is a research question, not a promise. Tap a goal to filter. Open a card to see the studies, doses and limits.

Tired, irritated or sore eyes, eyelid inflammation and styes (traditional use)

Not enough evidence

Eyebright tea has been used in Europe on the eyes since at least the 14th century. It was used for conjunctivitis, sore eyelids (blepharitis), styes and tired eyes. The EU herbal committee looked at this use and found no adequate data to support it.

2 studiesTraditionally a fresh tea (infusion) used as an eye compress or rinse…

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No human study of homemade eyebright tea on the eyes was found by the EU committee, which searched the literature up to early 2009. We found nothing newer.

Results

Traditional use only. The committee said the benefit is undocumented and that putting homemade preparations in the eye is not hygienic and not safe.

Effect sizes as reported

No numbers: no study.

Why this rating

Long use is not proof. No controlled study exists for tea or compresses.

Form and dose studied

Traditionally a fresh tea (infusion) used as an eye compress or rinse; the EU committee did not recommend this use. No amounts are given on this page.

Who was studied

Adults with minor eye irritation in the older European texts.

Limits

Tradition cannot show whether a person would have got better anyway; quality and cleanliness of homemade preparations cannot be guaranteed.

Why researchers looked

The name and the long tradition come from this use.

Traditional use

The EU assessment traces use as an eye medicine to the early 1300s in European texts, and lists conjunctivitis, blepharitis, eye fatigue, pus-forming eye inflammation and styes as traditional uses. Tea was made fresh and applied as a compress or eye rinse.

Proposed mechanism Pharmacological theory

The EU committee proposed that tannins may act as an astringent and iridoids such as aucubin as anti-inflammatory agents. It noted that no study had tested these ideas for eye use.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

Homemade eye preparations cannot be made sterile at home. See the Safety tab.

^{5 6}

Conjunctivitis (pink eye) treated with manufactured Euphrasia eye drops

Very low certainty

One open study followed 65 people with conjunctivitis who used manufactured Euphrasia eye drops. Most recovered within about two weeks. Because nobody was given a dummy treatment, it cannot show the drops did the work.

3 studiesManufactured single-dose Euphrasia eye drops (a product, not a home t…

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

Stoss and colleagues (2000): an open, one-group study in 12 practices in Germany and Switzerland. 65 people with inflammatory or catarrhal conjunctivitis used one drop 1 to 5 times a day and were checked after about 7 and 14 days.

Results

53 of 65 (81.5%) fully recovered, 11 (17.0%) clearly improved and 1 (1.5%) was slightly worse. No serious side effects were seen. Patients and doctors rated results 'good' to 'very good' in more than 85%.

Effect sizes as reported

81.5% complete recovery, 17.0% clear improvement (no comparison group, so no effect size).

Why this rating

Open design with no control group; most simple conjunctivitis clears on its own. The EU committee judged the study of limited value and said no conclusion on efficacy can be drawn.

Form and dose studied

Manufactured single-dose Euphrasia eye drops (a product, not a home tea). Amounts are not given in the abstract and none are stated here.

Who was studied

People with inflammatory or catarrhal conjunctivitis seen by doctors in Germany and Switzerland.

Limits

No placebo group; self-rated outcomes; one product; follow-up about 2 weeks; the EMA describes the study differently (a combination product, 80 patients), so check the original paper.

Why researchers looked

A group of doctors who use anthroposophic medicine wanted to describe how patients did in everyday practice.

Traditional use

Eye drops made from Euphrasia rostkoviana have been used in anthroposophic medicine for over 70 years, according to the study authors.

Proposed mechanism Preliminary mechanism

Not studied in this trial. The authors give an anthroposophic idea about the 'fluid organism' of the eye, which is not a scientific mechanism and is not accepted here.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

No serious adverse events reported. The abstract does not describe how the drops were made sterile. Antibiotics help only bacterial conjunctivitis, so have the cause checked.

^{18 5 14}

Eye discharge in premature babies (Euphrasia drops compared with saline)

Low certainty

A randomized trial in 84 premature babies with eye discharge found no clear difference between Euphrasia drops and plain saline drops in the main result. There were small, non-significant trends toward less redness and tearing with Euphrasia.

2 studiesManufactured Euphrasia eye drops (Weleda). Amount per drop not given …

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

Meier-Girard and colleagues (2020): a double-blind trial at the Bern University Children's Hospital. Preterm babies were given Euphrasia eye drops (Weleda) or 0.9% saline, one drop in each eye four times a day for 96 hours.

Results

Treatment success (no discharge at 96 hours and no antibiotic eye drops): 22 (55.0%) with Euphrasia vs 21 (51.2%) with saline, p = 0.85. Redness cleared in 24 to 48 hours in 24 (92.3%) vs 12 (80.0%), p = 0.34. Relapse or first redness in 3 eyes (7.9%) vs 8 eyes (18.2%), p = 0.17. Tearing at 96 hours in 5 eyes (12.8%) vs 12 (27.3%), p = 0.10.

Effect sizes as reported

Main outcome: 55.0% vs 51.2%, p = 0.85 (no significant difference). The secondary differences were not statistically significant.

Why this rating

One small randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a null main result. The 'trend' findings are not reliable.

Form and dose studied

Manufactured Euphrasia eye drops (Weleda). Amount per drop not given in the abstract.

Who was studied

Preterm babies with white, yellow or green eye discharge.

Limits

Single centre; small; 96 hours only; secondary outcomes not significant; the abstract does not say how many babies were lost from each group.

Why researchers looked

Doctors wanted to know whether the drops could cut antibiotic use in newborns with sticky eyes.

Traditional use

The study authors come from an anthroposophic medicine group in Bern, which uses these drops.

Proposed mechanism Preliminary mechanism

Not tested.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

Babies under 30 days old with red sticky eyes need a doctor, not home treatment (NHS). No side-effect details are given in the abstract.

^{10 14}

Eye allergy symptoms

Not enough evidence

A 2003 review lists Euphrasia officinalis among herbs that have been tested in controlled studies of eye allergy. The abstract gives no results for it, so we cannot say whether it helped.

1 studiesNot stated.

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

Bielory and Heimall (2003) review of complementary treatments for eye allergy. The abstract names Euphrasia officinalis, Petasites hybridus and Argemone mexicana as studied in controlled trials but does not report what was found. We did not read the full text.

Results

No result for Euphrasia can be taken from the abstract. In the same review, honey was no better than placebo and homeopathy gave conflicting results.

Effect sizes as reported

None reported in the abstract.

Why this rating

Only an abstract that does not report results; the underlying controlled study was not identified.

Form and dose studied

Not stated.

Who was studied

People with ocular allergy symptoms.

Limits

Abstract only; narrative review from 2003.

Why researchers looked

Eye allergy is common and many people look for natural options.

Traditional use

Not described in the abstract.

Proposed mechanism Pharmacological theory

Not described in the abstract.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

Not described.

Calming and protective signals in eye-cell laboratory studies

Very low certainty

In dishes of human eye-surface (corneal) cells, some Euphrasia extracts lowered inflammation signals, and a chamomile-plus-Euphrasia drop protected cells from UV light damage. This is laboratory work only. It does not show a benefit in a person.

2 studiesLab extracts (ethanol, ethyl acetate, heptane) and a commercial combi…

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No human data. Two cell studies: Paduch 2014 (three Euphrasia officinalis extracts on a corneal cell line) and Bigagli 2017 (a commercial chamomile and Euphrasia drop on UVB-exposed corneal cells).

Results

Extracts lowered pro-inflammatory messengers in cells and the combination drop kept more cells alive under UVB light. The result depended on the solvent used for the extract.

Effect sizes as reported

Cell results only; no effect sizes are meaningful for people.

Why this rating

Cell studies only; extracts and concentrations are not those of any product.

Form and dose studied

Lab extracts (ethanol, ethyl acetate, heptane) and a commercial combination drop; none is a home tea.

Who was studied

Cultured human corneal cells.

Limits

Cells in a dish; no human or animal eye tested; combination product cannot separate Euphrasia from chamomile.

Why researchers looked

Researchers wanted to find out whether the plant's traditional eye use has a biological basis.

Traditional use

Not applicable.

Proposed mechanism Laboratory research

In cells: lower IL-1 beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha with ethanol and ethyl acetate extracts; a heptane extract was toxic. In the combination drop: less oxidative damage and less COX-2, IL-1 beta and iNOS activity.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

A heptane extract damaged cells at a low concentration, which shows that extract type matters.

^{16 2}

Colds and runny nose (traditional use)

Not enough evidence

Eyebright tea or tincture by mouth, and a nasal ointment made with the tincture, are traditional remedies for colds and a runny nose. The EU committee found no adequate data for any of them.

2 studiesTea, tincture and nasal ointment are traditional forms. No amounts ar…

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No clinical study of eyebright for colds was found in the EU assessment.

Results

Traditional use only; efficacy undocumented.

Effect sizes as reported

No numbers: no study.

Why this rating

No trials; the tincture specification was not available to the EU committee.

Form and dose studied

Tea, tincture and nasal ointment are traditional forms. No amounts are given here.

Who was studied

Adults with colds in traditional books.

Limits

Tradition cannot show benefit; products were not standardised.

Why researchers looked

Traditional herbal books list it for catarrh and colds.

Traditional use

The EU assessment lists oral tea, a 1:5 tincture and a nasal ointment containing a 20% tincture as traditional uses for colds.

Proposed mechanism Pharmacological theory

Not studied.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

No safety data for oral or nasal use were found.

^{5 6}

Blood sugar (rat study only)

Not enough evidence

A water extract of eyebright leaves lowered blood sugar in rats made diabetic, but not in rats with normal blood sugar. No human study exists.

1 studiesA water extract in rats; no human amounts exist.

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No human data. The EU report describes one rat study (Porchezhian 2000): aqueous extract of Euphrasia officinalis leaves from India, 600 mg per kg, compared with phenformin.

Results

Blood sugar fell significantly 3 to 6 hours after the extract in diabetic rats; no significant drop in normal rats.

Effect sizes as reported

Rat results only; not read in the original paper.

Why this rating

Animal study seen only through the EU report.

Form and dose studied

A water extract in rats; no human amounts exist.

Who was studied

Diabetic and normal rats.

Limits

Not read in the original; animal only.

Why researchers looked

It was tested after traditional use in India was reported.

Traditional use

Not described.

Proposed mechanism Animal research

Not worked out.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

If a person takes diabetes medicine, nothing is known about combining it with eyebright.

⁵

Nerve-cell protection and memory (laboratory only)

Very low certainty

In dishes of human nerve-type cells, some eyebright extracts kept more cells alive when exposed to a toxic protein linked to Alzheimer's disease. This has not been tested in animals or people.

1 studiesLab solvent extracts only.

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No human data. One cell study (Ververis 2024) of seven extracts of Euphrasia officinalis grown in Greece.

Results

Cell survival rose by 17.5 to 22.6% with five extracts exposed to amyloid-beta; ethyl acetate and butanol extracts were most active.

Effect sizes as reported

17.5 to 22.6% higher cell survival in a dish.

Why this rating

Cell study only.

Form and dose studied

Lab solvent extracts only.

Who was studied

Human neuroblastoma cells.

Limits

No animal or human test; the Alzheimer's suggestion is only a hope.

Why researchers looked

Eyebright is mentioned in folk medicine for memory loss, and it contains antioxidants.

Traditional use

The 2024 paper says folk medicine used it for eye disorders and memory loss.

Proposed mechanism Laboratory research

Extracts blocked cholinesterase enzymes and had antioxidant activity in test tubes; five extracts raised cell survival by 17.5 to 22.6%.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

None known.

²⁰

Germ-slowing effect in the test tube

Very low certainty

A distilled eyebright oil slowed the growth of most eye-infection germs in the test tube. This does not show that tea or drops treat eye infections.

1 studiesEssential oil, not a tea.

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No human data. Novy 2015 tested the essential oil of Euphrasia rostkoviana against 7 microbes.

Results

Active against all tested microbes except Pseudomonas aeruginosa; best against Gram-positive bacteria at 512 micrograms per mL.

Effect sizes as reported

Minimum inhibiting concentration 512 micrograms per mL for Gram-positive bacteria.

Why this rating

Test-tube study of an oil, not an eyewash.

Form and dose studied

Essential oil, not a tea.

Who was studied

Seven lab microbes.

Limits

Not an eye treatment; the oil is not part of the teas or standard drops.

Why researchers looked

Eyebright is traditionally used for eye infections.

Traditional use

Used on infected eyes in older books (EU assessment).

Proposed mechanism Laboratory research

The oil contains thymol and linalool, which are known to slow some microbes; this was not tested alone.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

Essential oil safety in the eye was not studied.

¹⁵

Antioxidant activity in test tubes

Very low certainty

Extracts of eyebright, especially a fraction rich in caffeic acid compounds, scavenge free radicals in test-tube tests. This is chemistry, not proof of a health benefit.

2 studiesLab extracts.

Studies, doses and limits

What the trials found

No human data. Blazics 2009 (methanol extract and fractions of Euphrasia rostkoviana) and Paduch 2014 (ethanol and ethyl acetate extracts).

Results

Fraction 1 had IC50 11.88 micrograms per mL (DPPH) and 4.24 (ABTS). A heptane extract did not scavenge radicals.

Effect sizes as reported

IC50 11.88 and 4.24 micrograms per mL in two assays.

Why this rating

Test-tube assays only.

Form and dose studied

Lab extracts.

Who was studied

Chemical assays.

Limits

Chemistry only.

Why researchers looked

Oxidative stress is linked to inflammation, which is the traditional target.

Traditional use

Used for inflamed eyes in older books.

Proposed mechanism Laboratory research

Caffeic acid derivatives and flavonoid glycosides neutralise radicals in the assay.

A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.

None.

^{3 16}

Connections to the rest of health

How Eyebright connects to the rest of our health knowledge graph. Every link says what kind of connection it is. A safety link (for example to the liver) is a warning, not a benefit. A study that merely mentions a topic never creates a benefit link.

Explore every connection: goals, body systems, organs, symptoms, genes

Kind of connection Connected to Search

A. Wellness goals

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Seasonal Wellness	Traditional use	Not enough evidence	Eye allergy symptoms: A 2003 review lists Euphrasia officinalis among herbs that have been tested in controlled studies of eye allergy. The abstract gives no results for it, so we cannot say whether it helped. Colds and runny nose (traditional use): Eyebright tea or tincture by mouth, and a nasal ointment made with the tincture, are traditional remedies for colds and a runny nose. The EU committee found no adequate data for any of them.	^{1 5 6}
Inflammation Balance	Preliminary mechanism	Very low certainty	Calming and protective signals in eye-cell laboratory studies: In dishes of human eye-surface (corneal) cells, some Euphrasia extracts lowered inflammation signals, and a chamomile-plus-Euphrasia drop protected cells from UV light damage. This is laboratory work only. It does not show a benefit in a person.	^{16 2}
Immune Support	Traditional use	Not enough evidence	Colds and runny nose (traditional use): Eyebright tea or tincture by mouth, and a nasal ointment made with the tincture, are traditional remedies for colds and a runny nose. The EU committee found no adequate data for any of them.	^{5 6}
Blood Sugar Balance	Preliminary mechanism	Not enough evidence	Blood sugar (rat study only): A water extract of eyebright leaves lowered blood sugar in rats made diabetic, but not in rats with normal blood sugar. No human study exists.	⁵
Memory Support	Preliminary mechanism	Very low certainty	Nerve-cell protection and memory (laboratory only): In dishes of human nerve-type cells, some eyebright extracts kept more cells alive when exposed to a toxic protein linked to Alzheimer's disease. This has not been tested in animals or people.	²⁰
Brain Health	Preliminary mechanism	Very low certainty	Nerve-cell protection and memory (laboratory only): In dishes of human nerve-type cells, some eyebright extracts kept more cells alive when exposed to a toxic protein linked to Alzheimer's disease. This has not been tested in animals or people.	²⁰
Immune Support	Preliminary mechanism	Very low certainty	Germ-slowing effect in the test tube: A distilled eyebright oil slowed the growth of most eye-infection germs in the test tube. This does not show that tea or drops treat eye infections.	¹⁵
Healthy Aging	Preliminary mechanism	Very low certainty	Antioxidant activity in test tubes: Extracts of eyebright, especially a fraction rich in caffeic acid compounds, scavenge free radicals in test-tube tests. This is chemistry, not proof of a health benefit.	^{3 16}

B. Body systems

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Nervous System	Biological association	Not enough evidence	Studied for: Tired, irritated or sore eyes, eyelid inflammation and styes (traditional use) Studied for: Nerve-cell protection and memory (laboratory only)	^{5 6 20}
Immune System	Biological association	Not enough evidence	Studied for: Eye allergy symptoms Studied for: Colds and runny nose (traditional use)	^{1 5 6 15}
Respiratory System	Biological association	Not enough evidence	Studied for: Colds and runny nose (traditional use)	^{5 6}
Endocrine System	Biological association	Not enough evidence	Studied for: Blood sugar (rat study only)	⁵

C. Body parts and organs

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Eyes	Adverse effect or risk	Not enough evidence	Non-sterile preparations may infect the eye; EU committee advises against; no eyebright case report found. Preparation or compound: Homemade eyebright tea, compress or wash	^{6 5 19}
Eyes	Traditional use	Not enough evidence	Traditional eye use; two small drop studies; homemade eye preparations advised against by the EU committee. Preparation or compound: Eyebright tea or manufactured eye drops	^{5 18 10}

E. Health conditions

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Conjunctivitis	Traditional use	Not enough evidence	One open study; antibiotics help only bacterial cases, so get the cause checked. Preparation or compound: Manufactured Euphrasia eye drops	^{18 14}
Conjunctivitis	Potential benefit	Not enough evidence	One open study without a comparison group; get the cause checked. Preparation or compound: Manufactured Euphrasia eye drops	^{18 14}

G. Root causes and contributing factors

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Non-sterile eye products	Adverse effect or risk	Not enough evidence	Cannot be made sterile; regulators warn against them. Preparation or compound: Homemade eye washes and compresses	^{6 19}

I. Biomarkers

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Eye discharge cleared without antibiotics (preterm babies)	Biological association	Low certainty	Measured in trials: no-change. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit.	¹⁰
Redness and tearing in the babies' eyes	Biological association	Low certainty	Measured in trials: mixed. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit.	¹⁰
Conjunctivitis symptoms (redness, swelling, secretion, burning, foreign-body feeling)	Biological association	Very low certainty	Measured in trials: lowered. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit.	¹⁸
Inflammation messengers made by corneal cells (IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-10)	Biological association	Very low certainty	Measured in trials: lowered. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit.	¹⁶
Blood glucose (rats)	Biological association	Not enough evidence	Measured in trials: lowered. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit.	⁵
Survival of nerve-type cells exposed to amyloid-beta	Biological association	Very low certainty	Measured in trials: raised. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit.	²⁰

J. Genes, receptors and enzymes

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
IL1B, IL6, TNF (inflammatory cytokines)	Preliminary mechanism	In vitro	Lowered by extracts in cultured corneal cells.	¹⁶
PTGS2 (COX-2) and NOS2 (iNOS)	Preliminary mechanism	In vitro	Lowered by a chamomile plus Euphrasia drop in UVB-stressed corneal cells.	²
ACHE, BCHE (cholinesterases)	Preliminary mechanism	In vitro	Tested in test-tube assays.	²⁰

L. Active compounds

Connected to	Kind of connection	Evidence status	Context	Studies
Aucubin	Biological association	Pharmacological theory	The EU report proposes anti-inflammatory activity from iridoids; not tested here. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{5 17}
Apigenin	Biological association	In vitro	Not tested alone in the sources read. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{5 17}
Luteolin	Biological association	In vitro	Not tested alone. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{5 17}
Quercetin	Biological association	In vitro	Not tested alone. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{5 17}
Kaempferol	Biological association	In vitro	Not tested alone. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{5 17}
Caffeic acid and its sugar and ester compounds	Biological association	In vitro	A glycosylated caffeic acid fraction had the strongest antioxidant activity in test tubes. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{3 5 17}
Chlorogenic acid	Biological association	In vitro	Not tested alone. Preparation or compound: Herb	^{5 17}
Tannins	Biological association	Pharmacological theory	The EU report proposes an astringent action; not tested for eyes. Preparation or compound: Herb	⁵
Essential oil (hexadecanoic acid, thymol, linalool, anethole)	Biological association	In vitro	Slowed most tested microbes in the test tube. Preparation or compound: Aerial parts (not stated in abstract)	¹⁵

Each connection is stored with the ingredient, the connected record, the kind of connection, the evidence status, the supporting studies, the preparation or compound involved, and a review date (last reviewed October 25, 2026).

Evidence at a glance: what changed in 6 lab markers

Tap a number to show only those markers. Counts are markers, not people.

Metabolic1 Other2111

The evidence

The research centre for Eyebright. Every record here was checked against PubMed or the publisher's page; we never list a study we have not verified.

Evidence by outcome

Tired, irritated or sore eyes, eyelid inflammation and styes (traditional use) 2 studies Not enough evidence Conjunctivitis (pink eye) treated with manufactured Euphrasia eye drops 3 studies Very low certainty Eye discharge in premature babies (Euphrasia drops compared with saline) 2 studies Low certainty Eye allergy symptoms 1 studies Not enough evidence Calming and protective signals in eye-cell laboratory studies 2 studies Very low certainty Colds and runny nose (traditional use) 2 studies Not enough evidence Blood sugar (rat study only) 1 studies Not enough evidence Nerve-cell protection and memory (laboratory only) 1 studies Very low certainty Germ-slowing effect in the test tube 1 studies Very low certainty Antioxidant activity in test tubes 2 studies Very low certainty

Bars show how many studies we found for each outcome, not how well it works. People are added up across trials only (reviews are not added, to avoid double counting).

How we rate evidence

High certainty

Several well-run trials or reviews agree; further research is unlikely to change the picture much.

Moderate certainty

Good trials point the same way, but some doubt remains.

Low certainty

Small, short or inconsistent trials. The finding could change with better research.

Very low certainty

Very little or very weak human data. Treat as a possibility only.

Mixed findings

Trials or reviews disagree with each other.

Not enough evidence

Not enough human research to say either way.

Evidence against

Good research found no benefit, or found harm.

We take the reviewers' own risk-of-bias and GRADE statements where they exist, and otherwise judge from study size, design, consistency, directness and whether a product matches what is sold. Many publications do not make evidence high. Method note: We started from our existing eyebright summary, searched PubMed, read the abstract of every PubMed study cited, read the EU herbal committee assessment and public statement in full, read the FDA and NHS pages, and checked plant names in GBIF and NCBI Taxonomy and compounds in PubChem. Not verified: NCCIH had no eyebright page, LiverTox and LactMed had no entry, and Commission E, WHO and ESCOP were not read. Certainty ratings are the compiler's reading.

Study library: every study we checked 20

Design Research type Plant part Year from Search

Study	Design	People	Product, dose, length	Result
Bielory 2003 Review of complementary and alternative medicine in treatment of ocular allergies. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol · PMID 14501441 · DOI	Narrative review human review	People with ocular allergy symptoms	Herbs including Euphrasia officinalis (details not in abstract) not stated in abstract Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	The abstract says Euphrasia officinalis, Petasites hybridus and Argemone mexicana have been evaluated in controlled studies of ocular allergy. It gives no results for Euphrasia. Homeopathy results were conflicting. No result for Euphrasia can be taken from the abstract (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Evidence for complementary treatments of ocular allergy Limitations: Only the abstract was read; the controlled study of Euphrasia is not named or described there, so we cannot say what it found. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract
Bigagli 2017 Pharmacological activities of an eye drop containing Matricaria chamomilla and Euphrasia officinalis extracts in UVB-induced oxidative stress and inflammation of human corneal cells. J Photochem Photobiol B · PMID 28704790 · DOI	Laboratory (cell) study in-vitro	Cultured human corneal epithelial cells (HCEC-12) exposed to UVB light	Commercial eye drop (Dacriovis) containing chamomile and Euphrasia officinalis extracts not stated in abstract Not applicable (lab concentrations) Not stated in abstract · vs Untreated or UVB-only cells	The combination drop protected cells from UVB-induced death, improved wound healing, lowered reactive oxygen species and reduced COX-2, IL-1 beta and iNOS gene activity. Lab protection in cells; the effect of Euphrasia alone cannot be separated from chamomile (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Cell survival, wound healing, reactive oxygen species, COX-2, IL-1 beta, iNOS Limitations: Combination product, so Euphrasia cannot be singled out; cell study; no human data. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. A commercial product was tested; maker link not checked. Read: abstract
Blazics 2009 Antioxidant activity of different phenolic fractions separated from Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne. Acta Pharm Hung (article in Hungarian; English abstract read) · PMID 19526677	Laboratory study in-vitro	Test-tube antioxidant assays	Methanol extract and fractions of Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne not stated in abstract Not applicable Not applicable · vs Standard antioxidants	The fraction dominated by a caffeic acid sugar compound was the strongest (IC50 11.88 micrograms per mL in DPPH and 4.24 in ABTS). Flavonoid glycoside fractions were similar but weaker. Strong in the test tube; no human meaning (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Radical scavenging (DPPH and ABTS assays) Limitations: Test-tube chemistry only; antioxidant activity in a tube does not show a benefit in the body. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract
Carvalho 2009 Self-medication: initial treatments used by patients seen in an ophthalmologic emergency room. Clinics (Sao Paulo) · PMID 19690656 · DOI	Cross sectional survey	561 Consecutive patients at a university hospital eye emergency room in Sao Paulo, Brazil	Homemade and manufactured eye treatments used before the visit (herbal infusions among them; eyebright not named in the abstract) not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	40.5% of the 561 patients had used a self-treatment first. Boric acid solution (53.3%), saline (35.7%), herbal infusions (6.1%) and breast milk (4.8%) were the most frequent products used. Self-treatment at home is common even for urgent eye problems (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Which self-treatments people used before reaching the eye emergency room Limitations: Brazil only; does not say which herbs or whether any harm came from them; shows behaviour, not risk of a specific product. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract
European Medicines Agency (HMPC) 2010 Assessment report on Euphrasia officinalis L. and Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne, herba (EMA/HMPC/246799/2009) European Medicines Agency (HMPC) · Source	Authoritative regulator assessment document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Judged the two published clinical studies (Stoss 2000 and a 2007 Swiss neonatal pilot) of limited value and found no pharmacology, pharmacokinetic or clinical safety data. It found no reports of serious adverse events or drug interactions, but also said the data are too few to conclude anything. Quality and safety of homemade eye preparations cannot be guaranteed; no monograph was set. Constituents (quoting Blazics 2008): flavonoids 0.38%, tannins 0.56%, aucubin 0.05%, hydroxycinnamic derivatives 1.97%. Rat studies: an aqueous extract lowered blood sugar in diabetic rats; no toxic signs at 0.1 to 6 g per kg in rats; no reproductive, genotoxicity or carcinogenicity tests. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Dated 2010; the PDF text came out partly garbled, so some table values should be checked against the original; the older botanical family (Scrophulariaceae) is no longer the accepted one. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: full-text
European Medicines Agency (HMPC) 2010 Public statement on Euphrasia officinalis L. and Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne, herba (EMA/HMPC/727465/2009) European Medicines Agency (HMPC) · Source	Authoritative regulator statement document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Adopted 16 September 2010. The committee said no adequate data exist for the eye use or the nasal ointment, the efficacy of the claimed uses is undocumented, and 'external eye application of ex tempore preparations is not hygienic and not safe', so therapeutic use cannot be recommended and no Community herbal monograph can be established. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Dated 2010; no newer EU statement was found. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: full-text
GBIF 2026 GBIF backbone: Euphrasia officinalis L. (key 8106874) GBIF · Source	Taxonomic database record document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Euphrasia officinalis L. (Sp. Pl.: 604, 1753) is ACCEPTED in family Orobanchaceae, order Lamiales. Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne (key 3171977) is a SYNONYM that points to the accepted subspecies Euphrasia officinalis subsp. pratensis (Fr.) Schubl. & G.Martens (key 7494089). Euphrasia stricta J.P.Wolff ex J.F.Lehm. (key 3171980) is a separate accepted species. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Checked through the GBIF API on 2026-10-25; species limits in Euphrasia are disputed. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: API record
Gawenda-Kempczynska 2022 Phenolic acids as chemotaxonomic markers able to differentiate the Euphrasia species. Phytochemistry · PMID 35948137 · DOI	Plant chemistry study plant chemistry	Wild Euphrasia nemorosa, E. rostkoviana and E. stricta	Aerial herb of three Euphrasia species herb (aerial parts) Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Species differed a lot in phenolic content. E. rostkoviana had the highest total polyphenols and flavonoids; E. stricta the most phenolic acids. Content also depended on habitat. Chemistry differs by species and habitat (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Phenolic content by species Limitations: Chemistry only. It shows that products from different Euphrasia species or sites will not be the same. Funding and conflicts: Authors declare no competing interests. Read: abstract
Kyei 2020 Unorthodox ophthalmic preparations on the Ghanaian market: a potential risk for ocular and enteric infections. Afr Health Sci · PMID 33402940 · DOI	Laboratory survey of products product survey	27 Herbal and homeopathic eye preparations bought in ten regions of Ghana	Unorthodox (herbal and homeopathic) eye preparations; eyebright not named in the abstract not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	All 27 samples were contaminated with bacteria and most with fungi, including Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella and E. coli. The bacteria were resistant to all the common antibiotics tested except ciprofloxacin and gentamicin. Every product tested was contaminated (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Bacteria and fungi in the products Limitations: Ghana market only; eyebright is not named in the abstract; shows what can happen with unregulated eye products, not what is in any specific eyebright product. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract
Meier-Girard 2020 Euphrasia Eye Drops in Preterm Neonates With Ocular Discharge: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial. Front Pediatr · PMID 32850558 · DOI	Randomized double blind placebo controlled trial	84 Preterm babies with white, yellow or green eye discharge at one Swiss children's hospital	Euphrasia eye drops (Weleda AG), manufactured product not stated in abstract One drop in each eye four times a day (concentration not stated in abstract) 96 hours · vs 0.9% saline drops	Treatment success: 22 (55.0%) with Euphrasia vs 21 (51.2%) with saline (p = 0.85). Redness cleared in 24 to 48 hours in 24 (92.3%) vs 12 (80.0%) (p = 0.34). Relapse or first redness in 3 eyes (7.9%) vs 8 eyes (18.2%) (p = 0.17). Tearing at 96 hours in 5 eyes (12.8%) vs 12 eyes (27.3%) (p = 0.10). No significant difference on the main outcome; small non-significant trends for redness and tearing (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: No eye discharge at 96 hours and no antibiotic eye drops (treatment success); redness, tearing Limitations: Small single-centre trial; secondary results were not statistically significant; one product; 96 hours only. The abstract does not say the drops were sterile or how many babies were lost from the groups. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. The drops were made by Weleda AG; the authors are from an anthroposophic medicine institute; maker links not checked in the full text. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04122300 Read: abstract
NCBI Bookshelf (LiverTox 2026 LiverTox and LactMed search for eyebright or Euphrasia (nothing found) NCBI Bookshelf (LiverTox, LactMed) · Source	Database search (nothing found) document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	A Bookshelf search on 2026-10-25 for LiverTox or LactMed with eyebright or Euphrasia returned no entries. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Absence from these databases does not mean the herb is safe; it means no entry was found. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: search result
NCBI Taxonomy 2026 NCBI Taxonomy: Euphrasia officinalis (taxid 290213) NCBI Taxonomy · Source	Taxonomic database record document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Euphrasia officinalis is an active species-level entry in NCBI Taxonomy (taxid 290213). Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Checked through the NCBI API on 2026-10-25. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: API record
NCCIH (US National Institutes of Health) 2026 NCCIH eyebright page (not found) NCCIH (US National Institutes of Health) · Source	Authoritative fact sheet (not found) document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Not found: nccih.nih.gov/health/eyebright returned page-not-found on 2026-10-25. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: No fact sheet exists at the address tried; none confirmed. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: not found
NHS (UK) 2024 Conjunctivitis (NHS) NHS (UK) · Source	Public health patient guidance document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Treatment depends on the cause; antibiotics help only bacterial conjunctivitis, not viral or allergic. Cleaning crusts with a cotton wool pad and a cold flannel are self-care steps. See a GP if symptoms have not cleared within 7 days, if a baby has red sticky eyes (urgent if under 30 days), or if you wear contact lenses and have symptoms. Get urgent help for eye pain, sensitivity to light, changes in vision or very red eyes. Page last reviewed 23 April 2024. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Does not mention eyebright. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: full-text
Novy 2015 Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne Essential Oil. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med · PMID 26000025 · DOI	Laboratory study in-vitro	Seven microbes linked to eye infections	Essential oil of Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne (aerial parts, not stated in abstract) not stated in abstract Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	More than 70 compounds; the main ones were hexadecanoic acid (18.47%), thymol (7.97%), myristic acid (4.71%), linalool (4.65%) and anethole (4.09%). The oil slowed all microbes tested except Pseudomonas aeruginosa; best activity against Gram-positive bacteria at 512 micrograms per mL. Lab activity of an oil that is not in teas or standard eye drops (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Oil composition and effect on microbes Limitations: Test-tube study of a distilled oil, not an eyewash or tea; strong enough to matter in a lab does not mean it treats an eye infection. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract
Paduch 2014 Assessment of eyebright (Euphrasia officinalis L.) extract activity in relation to human corneal cells using in vitro tests. Balkan Med J · PMID 25207164 · DOI	Laboratory (cell) study in-vitro	Cultured human corneal epithelial cells (10.014 pRSV-T line)	Ethanol, ethyl acetate and heptane extracts of Euphrasia officinalis L. not stated in abstract Not applicable (lab concentrations) 24-hour exposure · vs Untreated cells	Heptane extract was toxic to cells at 25 micrograms per mL and did not scavenge free radicals. All three extracts lowered IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha and also IL-10 output by the corneal cells. Lab signals only; no result in people (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Cell toxicity, free-radical scavenging, nitric oxide, inflammatory signals (IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-10) Limitations: Cell culture only; extracts are not the tea or drops people use; an anti-inflammatory signal here does not show benefit in an eye. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract
PubChem 2026 PubChem compound records for eyebright constituents PubChem · Source	Chemical database record document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Compound ids confirmed by name through the PubChem API on 2026-10-25: aucubin 91458, apigenin 5280443, luteolin 5280445, quercetin 5280343, kaempferol 5280863, caffeic acid 689043, chlorogenic acid 1794427. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: Confirms the chemicals exist and their ids, not that a given amount is in any product. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: API record
Stoss 2000 Prospective cohort trial of Euphrasia single-dose eye drops in conjunctivitis. J Altern Complement Med · PMID 11152054 · DOI	Open label single arm prospective cohort	65 People with inflammatory or catarrhal conjunctivitis treated by 12 anthroposophic doctors in Germany and Switzerland	Euphrasia single-dose eye drops (Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne), manufactured product not stated in abstract One drop 1 to 5 times a day (amount per drop not stated in abstract) About 7 to 14 days (follow-up at 7 and 14 days) · vs None	53 of 65 (81.5%) fully recovered and 11 (17.0%) clearly improved; 1 (1.5%) slightly worse; no serious adverse events. Most patients recovered, but with no comparison group natural recovery cannot be ruled out (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Redness, swelling, secretion, burning and foreign-body feeling; tolerability Limitations: Open label, no control group, no placebo; conjunctivitis often clears by itself; the EMA report describes this study differently (a homeopathic combination, 80 patients) so details should be checked; patients and doctors rated their own results. Funding and conflicts: Not stated in the abstract. Anthroposophic doctors tested an anthroposophic-type product; a link to the maker was not checked. Read: abstract
US Food and Drug Administration 2026 What You Should Know About Eye Drops (FDA) US Food and Drug Administration · Source	Authoritative regulator consumer guidance document	Not applicable	Not applicable not applicable Not applicable Not applicable · vs Not applicable	Drugs put in the eyes bypass some natural defences and must be sterile to lower infection risk. Recalls of over-the-counter eye drops followed reports of infections, partial vision loss and blindness from contamination. FDA says not to use eye products labelled homeopathic because they should not be marketed and are not approved. Stop using eye drops and talk to a doctor if you get discharge, pain, vision changes or discomfort. Guidance document (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Regulatory or public-health guidance Limitations: General eye-drop guidance, not about eyebright by name. Funding and conflicts: Not applicable (public regulator document). Read: full-text
Ververis 2024 Chemical Characterization and Assessment of the Neuroprotective Potential of Euphrasia officinalis. Int J Mol Sci · PMID 39684612 · DOI	Laboratory (cell) study in-vitro	Human nerve-type (neuroblastoma) cells exposed to amyloid-beta; test-tube enzyme assays	Seven solvent extracts of Euphrasia officinalis L. grown in Greece not stated in abstract Not applicable Not applicable · vs Untreated cells	Five extracts raised the survival of cells exposed to amyloid-beta by 17.5 to 22.6%. Ethyl acetate and butanol extracts were the most active. Lab signal in nerve cells only (Not reported) Methods, limits and funding Outcomes: Antioxidant capacity, cholinesterase blocking, cell survival Limitations: Cell study only; authors speak of possible use for Alzheimer's disease, which is far from shown; no animal or human data. Funding and conflicts: Authors declare no conflicts of interest. Read: abstract

What we do not know yet

No controlled trial of homemade eyebright tea, compresses or washes.
Only one placebo-controlled trial (premature babies) and it was null on the main outcome.
No human data for oral or nasal use.
No pregnancy, breastfeeding, liver, allergy or interaction data.
No NCCIH, LiverTox or LactMed entry found; EU documents date from 2010.

How new research is added

New studies are found by a saved PubMed search and placed in a review queue. A person reads each one before it changes any rating or safety wording.

Lab markers

What changed in blood or saliva tests during trials. A changed number is not the same as feeling or being healthier, and we give no "normal ranges".

Metabolic 1

▼

Blood glucose (rats)

Lowered in trials

The sugar level in blood.

Not enough evidence

Results and what it means

Why it was measured

The single animal experiment tested it.

Statistical vs. clinical meaning

Animal result; not a clinical outcome.

Safety implication

Nothing known about use with diabetes medicines in people.

Study	Result	People	Product
⁵	Significantly lower 3 to 6 hours after an aqueous extract in diabetic rats (P<0.01); no significant fall in normal rats. Reported through the EU document; the original paper was not read.	Alloxan-diabetic and normal Wistar rats	Aqueous extract, 600 mg per kg by mouth

⁵

Other 5

●

Eye discharge cleared without antibiotics (preterm babies)

No clear change in trials

Whether a baby's eye discharge was gone after 96 hours and no antibiotic eye drops were needed.

Low certainty

Results and what it means

Why it was measured

The trial's main outcome: can a gentle treatment spare newborns antibiotics.

Statistical vs. clinical meaning

No statistical difference on the main outcome.

Safety implication

Babies with red sticky eyes need medical assessment.

Study	Result	People	Product
¹⁰	22 of the Euphrasia group (55.0%) vs 21 of the saline group (51.2%) reached treatment success; p = 0.85.	Preterm babies with eye discharge	Euphrasia eye drops (Weleda) vs 0.9% saline, 1 drop per eye 4 times a day for 96 hours

¹⁰

↕

Redness and tearing in the babies' eyes

Mixed results in trials

Whether the eye was red and whether it watered at the end of the 96-hour trial.

Low certainty

Results and what it means

Why it was measured

These are comfort signs the authors looked at as secondary outcomes.

Statistical vs. clinical meaning

None of these differences was statistically significant; they are hints, not findings.

Safety implication

None reported in the abstract.

Study	Result	People	Product
¹⁰	Redness resolved in 24 to 48 hours in 24 (92.3%) vs 12 (80.0%), p = 0.34. Relapse or first redness in 3 eyes (7.9%) vs 8 eyes (18.2%), p = 0.17. Tearing at 96 hours in 5 eyes (12.8%) vs 12 eyes (27.3%), p = 0.10.	Preterm babies with eye discharge	Euphrasia eye drops vs saline, 96 hours

¹⁰

▼

Conjunctivitis symptoms (redness, swelling, secretion, burning, foreign-body feeling)

Lowered in trials

Doctor and patient ratings of eye symptoms at about 7 and 14 days.

Very low certainty

Results and what it means

Why it was measured

The standard way to see whether eyes are getting better in everyday practice.

Statistical vs. clinical meaning

Recovery with no comparison group; many cases clear without treatment.

Safety implication

No serious adverse events reported.

Study	Result	People	Product
¹⁸	53 of 65 (81.5%) fully recovered and 11 (17.0%) clearly improved; 1 (1.5%) was slightly worse.	65 people with conjunctivitis in 12 practices	Euphrasia single-dose eye drops, 1 to 5 drops a day, no control group

¹⁸

▼

Inflammation messengers made by corneal cells (IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL-10)

Lowered in trials

Proteins that cells release to signal inflammation, measured in a dish.

Very low certainty

Results and what it means

Why it was measured

To see whether the extracts calm inflammation signals in eye-surface cells.

Statistical vs. clinical meaning

Lab only. Lower IL-10 shows the effect is not simply 'anti-inflammatory'.

Safety implication

Extract type matters for cell damage.

Study	Result	People	Product
¹⁶	All three extracts lowered IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha and the anti-inflammatory IL-10 after 24 hours; heptane extract was also toxic at 25 micrograms per mL.	Cultured human corneal epithelial cells	Euphrasia officinalis ethanol, ethyl acetate and heptane extracts

¹⁶

▲

Survival of nerve-type cells exposed to amyloid-beta

Raised in trials

The share of cells that stay alive after a toxic protein is added.

Very low certainty

Results and what it means

Why it was measured

A lab stand-in for nerve protection.

Statistical vs. clinical meaning

A dish result with no animal or human support.

Safety implication

None assessed.

Study	Result	People	Product
²⁰	Cell viability rose by 17.5 to 22.6% with five of seven extracts.	Human neuroblastoma cells	Euphrasia officinalis extracts from Greece

²⁰

Safety

What studies and official sources say about side effects, medicines and who should check first. Each point shows what kind of evidence it comes from.

Main points to know 5

Do not put homemade eyebright tea, compresses or washes in the eyes. The EU herbal committee said that putting homemade eyebright preparations on the eye is not hygienic and not safe, and it declined to set a monograph. Home preparations cannot be made sterile. The FDA says anything used in the eyes must be sterile, because contaminated eye products have been linked to infection, partial vision loss and blindness. We found no eyebright-specific infection case report, so the size of the risk for eyebright is unknown; the warning is based on the general rule for eye products and the committee's view. Authoritative guidance ^{6 5 19}
Eye products can be contaminated even when sold ready-made. In Ghana, all 27 herbal and homeopathic eye preparations tested were contaminated with bacteria, most with fungi too. Eyebright was not named in the abstract, so this shows what unregulated eye products can contain, not what a particular eyebright product contains. Other ⁹
Eye problems can need real treatment, and delay can cost vision. The NHS lists eye pain, sensitivity to light, vision changes, very red eyes, and red sticky eyes in a baby under 30 days as reasons for urgent help. Antibiotics help only bacterial conjunctivitis. A person trying eyebright first may lose time. The EU committee also said medical supervision is needed if symptoms have not improved within 2 days. Authoritative guidance ^{14 5}
Very little human safety information exists. Two small studies of manufactured drops (65 adults and 84 premature babies) reported no serious side effects, but the EU committee said the 124 patients across the clinical reports it reviewed were too few to draw conclusions on safety. No safety data exist for tea by mouth. Tincture and nasal ointment uses are traditional only. Controlled trial ^{18 10 5}
Eyebright products labelled homeopathic. Many Euphrasia eye products are homeopathic-type. The FDA says eye products labelled homeopathic should not be marketed and are not approved. Outside the US the rules differ; the EU report lists only homeopathic Euphrasia products in several countries. Authoritative guidance ^{19 5}

Side effects 4

Effect	How often	Severity and recovery	Evidence
No adverse effects reported in the two small drop studies Absence of reports in small studies does not show safety. Not studied for homemade preparations.	No serious events among 65 adults; no side-effect details in the abstract of the 84-baby trial	none serious reported not applicable	Controlled trial ^{18 10}
Eye infection or irritation from a non-sterile preparation (general eye-product risk) General warning for eye products; no eyebright-specific case found.	Not established	can be serious, including vision loss (FDA, for contaminated eye products) not stated	Authoritative guidance ^{19 9}
Allergic reaction or contact dermatitis Not found: our PubMed search of Euphrasia/eyebright with allergy, dermatitis, adverse and toxicity terms gave no case report. The EU report lists no allergy data. Not finding a report is not proof it cannot happen.	Not established	unknown unknown	Insufficient
Local eye tolerance of homemade preparations The EU report says data on ocular toxicity and local tolerance are missing.	Not established	unknown unknown	Authoritative guidance ⁵

Liver

No liver injury case report for eyebright was found. LiverTox has no entry we could find, and our PubMed search found no case. Oral use is traditional only and rarely studied, so the absence of cases is weak reassurance. ^{11 5}

How often. No frequency data exist.

Monitoring. No agency monitoring advice found. People with liver disease should ask a doctor before using any herbal product by mouth.

This is a safety connection. It is not evidence that Eyebright supports liver health.

Medicines and supplements 5

With	Why it matters	Importance	Evidence	What to do
Other eye drops or ointments (glaucoma drops, antibiotic or steroid drops, lubricants) prescription	Not studied. Mixing products in the eye can change how each works and raises the chance of contamination.	Unknown.	Pharmacological theory Not enough evidence ¹⁹	Do not add eyebright to the eye if you use eye medicine. Ask your eye doctor.
Diabetes medicines prescription	A water extract lowered blood sugar in diabetic rats. No human data.	Unknown. The rat result may not apply to people.	Animal research Very low certainty ⁵	If you take diabetes medicine and want to use eyebright by mouth, ask a doctor or pharmacist.
Iron and other minerals (tannins in the herb) supplement	Tannins (about 0.56% according to a report quoted by the EU) can bind minerals in the gut in theory. Not tested for eyebright.	Unknown.	Pharmacological theory Very low certainty ⁵	Theory only. A pharmacist can advise if you take mineral supplements.
Combination tinctures sold or described with eyebright other	The EU report describes a traditional mix of eyebright, passionflower and belladonna tinctures. Belladonna is a strong plant with its own dangers, so the safety of such a mix is not the safety of eyebright.	Not eyebright-specific.	Authoritative guidance Not enough evidence ⁵	Check the ingredient list of any mix.
No drug-drug interaction report exists summary	The EU committee found no reports of drug interactions. That reflects a lack of study, not a finding of no interactions.	Unknown.	Authoritative guidance Not enough evidence ⁵	Tell your doctor or pharmacist about any herb you use.

Who should check first 6

Situation	Advice	Evidence
Putting homemade preparations in or on the eye	Avoid (EU committee: not hygienic and not safe).	Authoritative guidance ^{6 5}
Eye pain, sensitivity to light, change in vision, or very red eyes	Get urgent medical help instead (NHS).	Authoritative guidance ¹⁴
Babies, especially under 30 days old with red sticky eyes	See a doctor. The only trial in infants was in hospital preterm babies with a manufactured product.	Authoritative guidance ^{14 10}
Wearing contact lenses with eye symptoms	See a GP (NHS). Do not wear lenses until eyes are better.	Authoritative guidance ¹⁴
Pregnancy and breastfeeding	Avoid unless a doctor agrees. No safety data were found; the EU report says reproductive toxicity tests were not performed, and LactMed has no entry we could find.	Authoritative guidance ^{5 11}
Known allergy to plants of the Orobanchaceae/Scrophulariaceae families	Unknown cross-reaction risk. No data found.	Insufficient

Overdose, product quality and regulators

Summary. Very little. A rat study quoted in the EU report found no signs of toxicity from an aqueous extract at 0.1 to 6 g per kg by mouth over 72 hours. Reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity were not tested. In cells, a heptane extract was toxic to corneal cells at a low concentration.

Animal. Rats: no toxic symptoms at 0.1 to 6 g per kg (aqueous extract, acute), as reported in the EU assessment.

Human doses studied. Only manufactured eye drops in small studies; amounts not stated here.

High dose or long term signals. None studied.

Overdose response. No human overdose report found.

Genotoxicity. Not tested (EU report).

Toxic plant parts. The aerial parts (herb) are used. No toxic part is named in the sources read.

Home preparations are made fresh and cannot be sterile. Ready-made herbal or homeopathic eye products have been found contaminated in Ghana. Species mix-ups are possible because the genus is hard to tell apart: species differ in their chemistry, and the EU report says the classification of the genus is contradictory.

Contaminated unregulated eye products. All 27 herbal and homeopathic eye preparations collected in Ghana grew bacteria and most grew fungi. ⁹

Self-treatment of eyes. In a Brazilian eye emergency room, 40.5% of 561 patients had treated themselves first; herbal infusions were 6.1% of the products listed. The abstract does not say which herbs or any outcome. ⁴

Which species is in the product. E. rostkoviana, E. stricta and E. nemorosa differ in phenolic content. A product label should name the species. The EU report saw no major concern about adulteration with related species. ^{8 5}

Body	Action	Date
EMA / HMPC (EU herbal committee) (European Union)	No Community herbal monograph established; public statement of 16 September 2010 says efficacy of eye and nasal uses is undocumented and external eye application of ex tempore preparations is not hygienic and not safe. source	2010-09-16
US FDA (United States)	General eye-drop guidance: eye products must be sterile; eye products labelled homeopathic should not be marketed and are not approved. Not about eyebright by name. source	2026
NHS (UK) (United Kingdom)	Conjunctivitis guidance; does not mention eyebright. Used for urgent signs. source	2024-04-23

When to get medical help

Eye pain, sensitivity to light, or any change in vision, such as wavy lines or flashes (NHS).
Very red eyes, or a red eye that is getting worse after using any eye product.
A baby under 30 days old with red, sticky eyes (NHS: urgent).
Discharge, swelling or pain after putting any herbal preparation in the eye. Stop and get medical help (FDA advice to stop eye drops with these signs).
Symptoms not clearing within 7 days (NHS), or not improving within 2 days (EU committee).

Stop the supplement and contact a clinician or emergency service. In the US, Poison Control is 1-800-222-1222.

General information only, not medical advice. Ask a clinician or pharmacist before use, especially with medicines, in pregnancy or with a health condition. See the Natural Remedy Safety guide.

Frequently asked questions

Does eyebright work for conjunctivitis?

We cannot say. One open study of manufactured Euphrasia drops in 65 adults found most recovered, but it had no comparison group, and pink eye often clears without treatment. The EU committee found no adequate evidence. Antibiotics help only bacterial conjunctivitis, so it is worth having the cause checked.

^{18 5 14}

Is it safe to use eyebright tea as an eye wash or compress?

No. The EU herbal committee said external eye use of homemade preparations is not hygienic and not safe. Homemade preparations cannot be made sterile, and the FDA links contaminated eye products to infection and vision loss. We found no eyebright-specific infection case report, so the exact risk is unknown.

^{6 5 19}

Are eyebright eye drops from a shop safe?

Manufactured drops were used in two small studies with no serious side effects reported, but the studies were too small to prove safety. Many are homeopathic-type products; the FDA says eye products labelled homeopathic are not approved. Ask an eye doctor or pharmacist before using any eye drop.

^{18 10 19}

Does eyebright help premature babies with sticky eyes?

A trial of 84 premature babies found no significant difference from saline on the main outcome. Babies under 30 days old with red sticky eyes need a doctor.

^{10 14}

Does eyebright help eye allergies?

Unknown. A 2003 review names it among herbs tested in eye allergy, but the abstract does not report results.

What does the EU say about eyebright?

In 2010 the EU herbal committee decided that no herbal monograph could be set. It said the efficacy of the claimed uses is undocumented and that homemade eye preparations are not hygienic or safe. No newer EU statement was found.

^{6 5}

Can I take eyebright by mouth or use it for colds?

That use is traditional only. The EU committee found no adequate data, and we found no human safety studies of oral use. Ask a doctor or pharmacist about amounts and about your own situation.

^{5 6}

Is eyebright safe in pregnancy or breastfeeding?

Unknown. We found no human data, the EU report says reproductive toxicity tests were not performed, and LactMed has no entry we could find. Avoid it unless your doctor agrees.

^{5 11}

Does eyebright interact with medicines?

No interaction has been reported, but none has been studied. A rat study found lower blood sugar, so ask a doctor if you take diabetes medicine. Do not mix it into eye medicines.

⁵

Can eyebright cause liver or allergy problems?

We found no case report of either, and no LiverTox entry. That is a gap in research, not proof of safety.

^{11 5}

What do the laboratory studies show?

Extracts lowered inflammation signals in cultured eye cells, scavenged free radicals in test tubes, slowed germs in a test tube, and protected nerve-type cells in a dish. None of this has been shown to help a person.

^{16 2 3 15 20}

When should I see a doctor about my eyes?

Get urgent help for eye pain, sensitivity to light, changes in vision, very red eyes, or a red sticky eye in a baby under 30 days old. See a GP if symptoms have not cleared within 7 days, or if you wear contact lenses and have symptoms.

¹⁴

Explore by health goal

Seasonal Wellness Immune Support Inflammation Balance Blood Sugar Balance Memory Support Brain Health Healthy Aging

Editorial transparency

Written by: AlternativeMed editorial team. Research compiled with AI assistance, then checked against PubMed records.
Medical review: None. This page has not been reviewed by a physician or pharmacist.
First published: 2026-10-25
Last substantive update: 2026-10-25
How we research: We started from our existing eyebright summary, searched PubMed, read the abstract of every PubMed study cited, read the EU herbal committee assessment and public statement in full, read the FDA and NHS pages, and checked plant names in GBIF and NCBI Taxonomy and compounds in PubChem. Not verified: NCCIH had no eyebright page, LiverTox and LactMed had no entry, and Commission E, WHO and ESCOP were not read. Certainty ratings are the compiler's reading.
How we rate evidence: See "How we rate evidence" in the Evidence tab.
Independence: No product is promoted on this page. No affiliate links are shown. Both drop studies came from groups linked to anthroposophic medicine, and the 2020 trial used drops made by Weleda; we flag this where it is stated.

Sources 20

Each source was opened and checked. Where we read only the abstract, it says so. The small numbers in the text point here.

Bielory L, Heimall J.. Review of complementary and alternative medicine in treatment of ocular allergies.. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003. PMID 14501441. DOI 10.1097/00130832-200310000-00013. (abstract)
Bigagli E, Cinci L, D'Ambrosio M, et al.. Pharmacological activities of an eye drop containing Matricaria chamomilla and Euphrasia officinalis extracts in UVB-induced oxidative stress and inflammation of human corneal cells.. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2017. PMID 28704790. DOI 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.06.031. (abstract)
Blazics B, Alberti A, Kery A.. Antioxidant activity of different phenolic fractions separated from Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne.. Acta Pharm Hung (article in Hungarian; English abstract read). 2009. PMID 19526677. (abstract)
Carvalho RS, Kara-Jose N, Temporini ER, et al.. Self-medication: initial treatments used by patients seen in an ophthalmologic emergency room.. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009. PMID 19690656. DOI 10.1590/S1807-59322009000800005. (abstract)
European Medicines Agency (HMPC). Assessment report on Euphrasia officinalis L. and Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne, herba (EMA/HMPC/246799/2009). European Medicines Agency (HMPC). 2010. (full-text)
European Medicines Agency (HMPC). Public statement on Euphrasia officinalis L. and Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne, herba (EMA/HMPC/727465/2009). European Medicines Agency (HMPC). 2010. (full-text)
GBIF. GBIF backbone: Euphrasia officinalis L. (key 8106874). GBIF. 2026. (API record)
Gawenda-Kempczynska D, Olech M, Balcerek M, et al.. Phenolic acids as chemotaxonomic markers able to differentiate the Euphrasia species.. Phytochemistry. 2022. PMID 35948137. DOI 10.1016/j.phytochem.2022.113342. (abstract)
Kyei S, Dogbadze E, Tagoh S, et al.. Unorthodox ophthalmic preparations on the Ghanaian market: a potential risk for ocular and enteric infections.. Afr Health Sci. 2020. PMID 33402940. DOI 10.4314/ahs.v20i1.58. (abstract)
Meier-Girard D, Gerstenberg G, Stoffel L, et al.. Euphrasia Eye Drops in Preterm Neonates With Ocular Discharge: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.. Front Pediatr. 2020. PMID 32850558. DOI 10.3389/fped.2020.00449. (abstract)
NCBI Bookshelf (LiverTox, LactMed). LiverTox and LactMed search for eyebright or Euphrasia (nothing found). NCBI Bookshelf (LiverTox, LactMed). 2026. (search result)
NCBI Taxonomy. NCBI Taxonomy: Euphrasia officinalis (taxid 290213). NCBI Taxonomy. 2026. (API record)
NCCIH (US National Institutes of Health). NCCIH eyebright page (not found). NCCIH (US National Institutes of Health). 2026. (not found)
NHS (UK). Conjunctivitis (NHS). NHS (UK). 2024. (full-text)
Novy P, Davidova H, Serrano-Rojero CS, et al.. Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Euphrasia rostkoviana Hayne Essential Oil.. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015. PMID 26000025. DOI 10.1155/2015/734101. (abstract)
Paduch R, Wozniak A, Niedziela P, et al.. Assessment of eyebright (Euphrasia officinalis L.) extract activity in relation to human corneal cells using in vitro tests.. Balkan Med J. 2014. PMID 25207164. DOI 10.5152/balkanmedj.2014.8377. (abstract)
PubChem. PubChem compound records for eyebright constituents. PubChem. 2026. (API record)
Stoss M, Michels C, Peter E, et al.. Prospective cohort trial of Euphrasia single-dose eye drops in conjunctivitis.. J Altern Complement Med. 2000. PMID 11152054. DOI 10.1089/acm.2000.6.499. (abstract)
US Food and Drug Administration. What You Should Know About Eye Drops (FDA). US Food and Drug Administration. 2026. (full-text)
Ververis A, Kyriakou S, Paraskeva H, et al.. Chemical Characterization and Assessment of the Neuroprotective Potential of Euphrasia officinalis.. Int J Mol Sci. 2024. PMID 39684612. DOI 10.3390/ijms252312902. (abstract)

Education, not medical advice. This page is for general information. It does not diagnose or treat any condition and is not a substitute for care from a qualified health professional. Natural does not automatically mean safe. Ask a clinician or pharmacist before changing your care, especially if you take medication, are pregnant or breastfeeding, or have a health condition.