ArticleInternational ophthalmology
Prophylaxis of experimental Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis after vitrectomy using ceftazidime in the irrigating solution.
Article in International ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Value of Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-1 in Post-Traumatic Bacterial Endophthalmitis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- A case of postoperative Sphingomonas paucimobilis endophthalmitis after cataract extraction.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo test the efficacy of ceftazidime in irrigating solution during vitrectomy to prevent experimental Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis.
methodsThirty-two rabbit eyes were divided into 6 groups. Vitrectomy using one of two different irrigating solutions was followed by intravitreal injection of P. aeruginosa: Group 1, balanced salt solution (BSS) followed by 100 colony-forming units (CFU) P. aeruginosa; Group 2, BSS fortified with ceftazidime 175 microg/mL (CBSS) followed by intravitreal injection of 100 CFU P. aeruginosa; Group 3, BSS followed by 500 CFU P. aeruginosa; Group 4, CBSS followed by 500 CFU P. aeruginosa; Group 5, BSS followed by 5000 CFU P. aeruginosa; and Group 6, CBSS followed by 5000 CFU P. aeruginosa. The eyes were examined clinically. Vitreous samples were cultured and histology was performed.
resultsGroup 1: Three of 5 eyes showed mild to moderate vitreous opacities. Group 2: No vitreous opacities developed. Group 3: All eyes demonstrated endophthalmitis. Group 4: All 6 eyes had clear vitreous with visible fundus. Group 5: Severe endophthalmitis occurred in all 6 eyes. Group 6: Four eyes had clearly visible fundus, 2 eyes had hazy vitreous with red reflex of the fundus. Bacterial growth in groups 3, 4, 5, and 6 was seen in 4/4, 1/6, 6/6, and 0/6 eyes, respectively.
conclusionWhen 100-5000 CFU P. aeruginosa were injected after vitrectomy, ceftazidime in the irrigating solution inhibited the signs of intraocular inflammation, and the rate of positive bacterial culture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.