Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22173072›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2012

Microsporidia and Acanthamoeba: the role of emerging corneal pathogens.

E Y Tu, C E Joslin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E Y TuDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. etu@uic.edu
C E Joslin
University of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

Corneal Refractive Power Post Refractive SurgeryK23EY015689 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI JOSLIN, CHARLOTTE E · 2004 to 2008
$708k
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY015689
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Parasitic organisms are increasingly recognized as human corneal pathogens. A notable increase in both well-defined Acanthamoeba keratitis and a more dramatic increase in reported cases of Microsporidia keratitis have suggested significant outbreaks of parasitic keratitis around the world. Historical and contemporary baselines as well as a familiar associated clinical presentation reinforce the significant outbreak of Acanthamoeba keratitis in the United States. The remarkable rise in cases of Microsporidia keratitis, however, lacks these established baselines and, further, describes a disease that is inconsistent with previous definitions of disease. While a well-defined, abrupt increase strongly suggests temporally related risk factors, most likely environmental, involved in the Acanthamoeba outbreak, the rise in Microsporidia keratitis suggests that increased awareness and improved diagnostic acumen are a significant factor in case ascertainment. Regardless, recent evidence indicates that both parasitic diseases are likely underreported in various forms of infectious keratitis, which may have unrecognized but significant implications in the pathogenesis of both primary protozoal and polymicrobial keratitis. Further understanding of the incidence and interaction of these organisms with current therapeutic regimens and more commonly recognized pathogens should significantly improve diagnosis and alter clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Acanthamoeba KeratitisDeveloped CountriesDeveloping CountriesEye Infections, FungalHumansIncidenceKeratitisMicrosporidiosisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID22173072
PMCPMC3272212
OpenAlexW1970222045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.