Phacoemulsification surgery: stepping into the mixed reality era.

In an increasingly digitized and fast-paced society, there is a growing need for quick and compact access to health-related information. At the same time, the availability of unfiltered, commercially biased, or medically unvalidated content carries the risk of influencing patient decision-making processes and promoting unrealistic expectations of physicians and therapeutic measures []. This can undermine the development of adequate eHealth literacy and at the same time impair patients' self-efficacy and successful shared decision-making practices in the doctor-patient relationship [–]. Studies have long examined the internet as a source of health-related information and have consistently underscored the substantial challenges and risks associated with its use. There is robust evidence that the internet has become an established and widely used tool for accessing health information [, ]; however, concerns about the quality, accuracy, and reliability of online content persist. In response, various initiatives have been developed to promote trustworthy digital health information and mitigate the spread of misinformation. These include the Health On the Net Foundation (HONcode), established in 1995, which certifies websites based on principles of transparency, authority, and evidence-based content [, ], as well as structured quality appraisal tools such as DISCERN, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and more recently the Principles for Health-related Information on Social Media (PRHISM) [–]. Despite these efforts, recent evidence demonstrates that misinformation and potentially harmful statements remain highly prevalent in social media posts about cancer, with analyses indicating that approximately 27% of posts contain misinformation and 21% include harmful content []. Particularly in online forums, where medical information and unfiltered subjective experiences intersect, such content can contribute to misguided decisions and, in the worst case, to health-damaging behaviors—especially when these platforms are mistakenly perceived as indicators of one’s own eHealth literacy [].