ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009
Laboratory diagnosis of amoebic keratitis: comparison of four diagnostic methods for different types of clinical specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nested PCR as a superior diagnostic method for Acanthamoeba keratitis compared to conventional techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical presentation, genotypic diversity, and intracellular bacteria inIJID regions · 2025Article
- Review
- Impact of implementation of polymerase chain reaction on diagnosis, treatment, and clinical course of Acanthamoeba keratitis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Comparison of culture, confocal microscopy and PCR in routine hospital use for microbial keratitis diagnosis.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- hBN Nanoparticle-Assisted Rapid Thermal Cycling for the Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Investigating the frequency of free-living amoeba in water resources with emphasis on Acanthamoeba in Bandar Abbas city, Hormozgan province, Iran in 2019-2020.BMC research notes · 2020Article
- The First Acanthamoeba keratitis Case of Non-Contact Lens Wearer with HIV Infection in Thailand.The Korean journal of parasitology · 2019Article
- Development and validation of a real-time PCR assay for the detection of clinical acanthamoebae.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- A DNA dot hybridization model for molecular diagnosis of parasitic keratitis.Molecular vision · 2017Article
- Molecular and Morphometric Characterization ofJundishapur journal of microbiology · 2016Article
- Article
- Reevaluation of an Acanthamoeba Molecular Diagnostic Algorithm following an Atypical Case of Amoebic Keratitis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- The role of domestic tap water on Acanthamoeba keratitis in non-contact lens wearers and validation of laboratory methods.Parasitology research · 2015Article
- Comparison of Fluorescence Microscopy and Different Growth Media Culture Methods for Acanthamoeba Keratitis Diagnosis.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2015Article
- Use of multiple immunosuppressive agents in recalcitrant ACANTHAMOEBA scleritis.BMJ case reports · 2015Article
- Acanthamoeba DNA can be directly amplified from corneal scrapings.Parasitology research · 2014Article
- Role of molecular diagnostics in ocular microbiology.Current ophthalmology reports · 2013Article
- Loop-mediated isothermal amplification targeting 18S ribosomal DNA for rapid detection of Acanthamoeba.The Korean journal of parasitology · 2013Article
- Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acanthamoeba keratitis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amoebic keratitis causes significant ocular morbidity in contact lens wearers. Current diagnostic methods for amoebic keratitis are insensitive and labor-intensive and have poor turnaround time. We evaluated four laboratory methods for detection of acanthamoebae in clinical specimens. Deidentified, delinked consecutive specimens from patients with suspected amoebic keratitis were assayed for acanthamoebae by direct smear analysis, culture, and PCR using two different primer sets specific for Acanthamoeba ribosomal DNA. The consensus reference standard was considered fulfilled when the results for any two of the four tests were positive, and the outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity. Of 107 specimens assayed over an 18-month period, 20 were positive for acanthamoebae. The sensitivity and specificity of each assay were as follows, respectively: for smear analysis, 55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.2 to 76.8%) and 100%; for culture, 73.7% (95% CI, 54.4 to 93.0%) and 100%; for PCR using Nelson primers, 90% (95% CI, 76.9 to 100%) and 90.8% (95% CI, 84.7 to 96.9%); and for PCR using JDP primers, 65% (95% CI, 44.1 to 85.9%) and 100%. Nelson primer PCR demonstrated a single-organism level of analytic sensitivity. The performance characteristics of the assays varied by specimen type, with contact lenses and casings showing the highest rates of detectable acanthamoebae and the highest diagnostic sensitivities for direct smear analysis, culture, and JDP primer PCR, though these results are based on small numbers and should be interpreted cautiously. These findings have important implications for clinicians collecting diagnostic specimens and for diagnostic laboratories, especially in outbreak situations.
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.