Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22336802›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Medical interventions for fungal keratitis.

Nilo Vincent FlorCruz, Ildefonso V Peczon, Jennifer R Evans

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Fungal Keratitis: Diagnosis, Management, and Recent Advances.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. First case of fungal keratitis due toCurrent medical mycology · 2019
    Article
  8. Rapamycin liposome gutta inhibiting fungal keratitis of rats.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Fungal keratitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Taiwan journal of ophthalmology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nilo Vincent FlorCruzDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of the Phillipines-Philippine General Hospital, Manila, Philippines.
Ildefonso V Peczon
Jennifer R Evans
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMunicipality of Medellín · COPhilippine General Hospital · PH

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFungal keratitis is a fungal infection of the cornea. It is common in agricultural tropical countries but relatively uncommon in developed countries. Although there are medications available, their effectiveness is unclear.

objectivesTo examine the effect of different antifungal drugs in the management of fungal keratitis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 1950 to August 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 29 August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on medical therapy for fungal keratitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion into the review, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. Interventions were compared by the proportions of participants that did not heal after a specific time of therapy. No meta-analysis was performed because the trials studied different medications with different concentrations. MAIN

resultsWe included nine trials in this review; seven conducted in India, one in Bangladesh and one in Egypt. A total of 568 participants were randomised to the following comparisons: 1% topical itraconazole versus 1% topical itraconazole and oral itraconazole, different concentrations of silver sulphadiazine versus 1% miconazole, 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment versus 1% miconazole ointment, 2% econazole versus 5% natamycin, different concentrations of topical chlorhexidine gluconate versus 5% natamycin, 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate versus 2.5% natamycin and voriconazole 1% versus natamycin 5%. The included trials were small and of variable quality. Differences between different regimens were not statistically different, which may reflect the low sample sizes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on the trials included in this review, there is no evidence to date that any particular drug, or combination of drugs, is more effective in the management of fungal keratitis. The trials included in this review were of variable quality and were generally underpowered.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsEye Infections, FungalHumansKeratitisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID22336802
OpenAlexW4244078919

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.