ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2012
Use of DNA microarray analysis in diagnosis of bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The diagnosis and treatment progress of infectious endophthalmitis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Customised 96-ocular TaqMan (iCAM) microarray PCR card for rapid diagnosis of microbial keratitis.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Vitreoretinal surgery in the management of infectious and non-infectious uveitis - a narrative review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- Application of High-Throughput Sequencing Technology in Identifying the Pathogens in Endophthalmitis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Hijacking of the Host's Immune Surveillance Radars byFrontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Molecular Diagnosis of Yeast Infections.Current fungal infection reports · 2021Review
- The cereus matter of Bacillus endophthalmitis.Experimental eye research · 2020Review
- Endogenous endophthalmitis caused by group B streptococcus; case reports and review of 35 reported cases.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Review
- Using MALDI-TOF-MS to testMolecular vision · 2017Article
- Identification of fungal pathogens by visible microarray system in combination with isothermal gene amplification.Mycopathologia · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo examine the utility of DNA microarray analysis for identifying causative microorganisms in endophthalmitis.
methodsThirteen samples of vitreous fluid (VF) were obtained from 13 patients during vitrectomy. Vitreous fluids from three patients with suspected endophthalmitis and ten controls without infection were subjected to testing for the presence of bacteria and fungi in culture tests, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis, and DNA microarray analysis.
resultsNo control sample was positive for bacteria or fungi in the culture test, PCR, or microarray analysis. Specimens from two patients (Cases 1 and 2) with suspected endophthalmitis were positive for bacteria in PCR, and a specimen from one patient (Case 3) was positive for fungi in PCR. Klebsiella pneumonia (Case 1), Streptococcus agalactiae (Case 2), and Candida parapsilosis (Case 3) in the PCR-positive specimens were identified by DNA microarray analysis within 24 hours. Culture results were also positive for K. pneumonia in Case 1, S. agalactiae in Case 2, and C. parapsilosis in Case 3, but required 3 to 4 days to obtain.
conclusionsMicroarray analysis is complementary to routine cultures for identifying causative microorganisms and is likely to be a useful tool in patients with suspected endophthalmitis who require rapid diagnosis and early antibiotic treatment.
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.