[Therapy and prognosis of bacterial keratitis].

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. [Adjunctive corticosteroids for antimicrobial treatment].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016
   Article
2. [Effectiveness of initial antibiotic therapy for treatment of contact lens-related bacterial keratitis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2014
   Article
3. [Rational antibiotic therapy in ophthalmology].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2010
   Article
4. [Keratomycosis: diagnosis and therapy].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2009
   Review
5. [Introduction to the topic: bacterial keratitis. From the proven to the new].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2007
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as