ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2006
Broad-range bacterial and fungal DNA amplification on vitreous humor from suspected endophthalmitis patients.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of methods for identifying causative bacterial microorganisms in presumed acute endophthalmitis: conventional culture, blood culture, and PCR.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Trial
- Gram-Negative Endogenous Endophthalmitis: A Systematic Review.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Identification of torque teno virus in culture-negative endophthalmitis by representational deep DNA sequencing.Ophthalmology · 2015Observational
- Portable single port 23-gauge vitrectomy in postoperative endophthalmitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Article
- Use of DNA microarray analysis in diagnosis of bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2012Article
- [Molecular biology-based methods for pathogen detection in endophthalmitis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrompt and accurate diagnosis of infectious endophthalmitis is crucial for rapid and effective treatment. By identifying whether the causative pathogen is bacterial or fungal, a rational approach for the use of antibacterials or corticosteroids, respectively, can be followed.
aimTo assess the clinical utility of broad-range bacterial and fungal DNA amplification in the detection of endophthalmitis (postoperative, posttraumatic, and endogenous).
methodsIn a prospective study, vitreous humor samples from 70 patients with the clinical diagnosis of presumed endophthalmitis, and from 30 patients undergoing surgery for non-infectious causes, were subjected to routine microbiologic and molecular investigation. DNA extracted from a 50 microL sample was amplified by primers targeting the conserved 16S and 18S ribosomal RNA gene sequences of bacteria and fungi, respectively. Reagents for bacterial DNA amplification were decontaminated of endogenous DNA using 8-methoxypsoralen and long wave UV treatment. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 35 specimens were positive for bacteria or fungi by culture. Of these, Gram-positive organisms were isolated in 19 specimens, Gram-negative organisms in 13 specimens and fungi in 3 specimens. Pseudomonas species, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus species were the main etiological agents isolated. Bacterial DNA amplification resulted in 49 positive specimens, compared with 32 positive specimens by culture; and fungal DNA amplification resulted in 11 positive specimens, compared with 3 positive specimens by culture. All control specimens were negative for both culture and DNA amplification.
conclusionDNA extracted using a single-extraction protocol from 50 microL of vitreous humor and amplified with broad-range bacterial and fungal primers will enable the rapid differentiation (within 14 hours) between bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis and allow tailoring of therapy to individual patients.
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.