A different view of the procedure.
Akoya makes adult and pediatric eyewear designed to limit the view of procedure activity. We believe patients’ visual preferences deserve attention, and we’re interested in how this approach fits everyday clinical care.
Explore the researchThe questions behind our approach
Research on looking away, visual barriers, and distraction gives us a reason to explore patients’ visual preferences. Alongside early feedback, it informs the questions we want to study for adults and children.
The studies below evaluated other approaches, not Akoya products. Neither that research nor our early feedback establishes that Akoya reduces anxiety, pain, or other clinical symptoms.
Explore the evidence
Four selected studies explore looking away, visual blocking, and the appearance of procedure equipment. Open each for its findings, limitations, and original publication.
Looking toward or away from a needlePilot randomized trial · 160 participants
What was studied: University students receiving influenza vaccinations were assigned to look toward or away from the needle.
What was found: Participants assigned to look away reported significantly less fear. Pain did not significantly differ between the groups.
How it relates: The findings support exploring how visual exposure affects the patient experience. The trial tested looking instructions, not eyewear, and the authors called for a larger trial in a different population.
Mithal et al. Canadian Journal of Pain. 2018;2(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1080/24740527.2017.1412254.
Read the vaccination study (opens in a new tab)Covering the eyes during a procedurePreliminary controlled study · 43 participants analyzed
What was studied: Adults undergoing chemoport insertion under local anesthesia received usual care or had their eyes covered with light-transmitting sterile gauze.
What was found: The visual-blocking group showed lower physiological stress responses, including cortisol, systolic blood pressure, and pulse.
How it relates: This small study directly explored visual blocking during a procedure. The authors described a quasi-experimental design and called for further evaluation. Covering both eyes differs from Akoya’s lower-field barrier; physiological changes alone do not establish a benefit for Akoya users.
Lee & Park. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2018;30(2):194–205. DOI: 10.7475/kjan.2018.30.2.194.
Read the visual-blocking study (opens in a new tab)Changing the appearance of a dental syringeRandomized trial · 76 participants
What was studied: Children received dental local anesthesia using a conventional syringe or a syringe with a light- or dark-colored camouflage sleeve.
What was found: The published abstract reports significantly lower self-reported anxiety with camouflage. Differences in pain, pulse rate, and blood pressure were not significant.
How it relates: This offers a reason to explore how the appearance of procedure equipment affects children’s experiences. Color and distraction may contribute to the findings; the trial did not isolate visual blocking or test eyewear. This summary is based on the published abstract.
Sukhbirsingh et al. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2025;35:923–931. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.13307.
Read the pediatric trial abstract (opens in a new tab)Syringe camouflage and the injection experienceRandomized trial · 70 participants
What was studied: Children received dental local anesthesia with a conventional or crocodile-shaped camouflaged syringe. Both groups received the same Tell–Show–Do guidance.
What was found: Anxiety and observed behavioral pain scores were significantly lower in the camouflage group than in the control group. Heart rate did not significantly differ. Anxiety increased during the procedure in both groups.
How it relates: The findings are promising for changing the appearance of procedure equipment. This small trial enrolled cooperative children without previous dental experience, limiting generalization. It did not test child-worn eyewear or separate concealment from distraction.
Darwish et al. International Journal of Dentistry. 2026;6516788. DOI: 10.1155/ijod/6516788.
Read the pediatric camouflage trial (opens in a new tab)A broader view of the research
Earlier trials, mixed findings, and distraction research add context. This is a selected reading list, not a comprehensive review.
Earlier syringe-camouflage studiesSmall trials · Mixed findings across outcomes
2018 pilot — 30 children ages 6–11: Children received injections with conventional and toy-like camouflaged syringes at separate appointments. Average behavioral pain scores and pulse-rate changes were lower with camouflage, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Melwani et al. Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2018;18(1):35–40. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.1.35.
Read the 2018 pilot (opens in a new tab)2023 randomized trial — 60 children ages 6–10: Observed behavioral pain scores were significantly lower with a camouflaged syringe. Anxiety and heart-rate differences were not significant. The needle was kept out of sight in both groups.
Bagher et al. Cureus. 2023;15(12):e50023. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50023.
Read the 2023 trial (opens in a new tab)How they relate: These studies help explain why findings should be considered outcome by outcome. Neither isolated the effect of blocking a child’s view or evaluated Akoya eyewear.
The role of active engagementRandomized trial · 52 participants
What was studied: One group closed their eyes and counted with their fingers during a dental injection. In the other group, the dentist covered the child’s visual field with a hand.
What was found: The active counting approach produced lower anxiety, pain, and heart-rate measures than passive visual covering.
How it relates: Both approaches reduced visual exposure, and there was no usual-care group with an unblocked view. The comparison suggests that engagement and delivery matter; it cannot establish the effect of visual blocking by itself.
Kavanoor & Nirmala. Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2025;25(5):327. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.5.327.
Read the behavior-guidance trial (opens in a new tab)What virtual-reality research can tell usSystematic reviews · Immersive distraction
Pediatric procedures: A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis reported lower pain and anxiety with immersive VR compared with usual care, with variation in study quality, procedures, and results.
Eijlers et al. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2019;129(5):1344–1353. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004165.
Read the pediatric VR review (opens in a new tab)Medical-procedure fear: A 2021 review of 28 studies examined VR distraction, exposure, and hypnosis. Some settings showed benefits; findings in others were unclear, and study quality limited firm conclusions.
Kilic et al. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2021;55(11):1062–1079. DOI: 10.1093/abm/kaab016.
Read the medical-procedure VR review (opens in a new tab)How they relate: VR combines immersive content with attention, and sometimes sound or interaction. These reviews provide background on distraction; they do not isolate visual blocking or establish that Akoya eyewear produces the same effects. The reviews may include overlapping studies.
Listening to patients
Early feedback on the adult Akoya Eye Shield came from a breast-biopsy setting. It describes patient experience and does not establish clinical effectiveness or results for the pediatric product.
45 completed questionnaires among 50 patientsView the reported feedback and its limitations
Akoya’s original feedback summary reported favorable ratings for ease of use, reliability, comfort, and recommendation following use during breast-biopsy care.
| Feedback category | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Ease of use | 96% |
| Reliability | 98% |
| Comfort | 96% |
| Recommendation | 96% |
Reading these figures: These percentages reproduce the original summary. Exact item wording, item-level response counts, and the calculation method are not provided in that summary. They should not be interpreted as clinical success rates or as the percentage of patients whose anxiety or pain improved.
What this can tell us: The feedback raises useful questions about product acceptance and the experience of wearing the adult Eye Shield. It was not randomized or controlled, and it cannot show that Akoya caused a clinical benefit. It does not evaluate Pediatric Character Eyewear.
Help shape what we learn.
We welcome conversations with healthcare teams interested in evaluating fit, patient preferences, and workflow for our adult or pediatric eyewear, or exploring future product-specific research.