Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22527320›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2012

Novel diagnosis of fungal endophthalmitis by broad-range real-time PCR detection of fungal 28S ribosomal DNA.

Manabu Ogawa, Sunao Sugita, Ken Watanabe, Norio Shimizu, Manabu Mochizuki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. The cereus matter of Bacillus endophthalmitis.Experimental eye research · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Chronic postcataract endophthalmitis caused byInternational medical case reports journal · 2018
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Endophthalmitis: state of the art.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manabu OgawaDepartment of Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan.
Sunao Sugita
Ken Watanabe
Norio Shimizu
Manabu Mochizuki
Tokyo Medical and Dental University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo detect the fungal genome in the ocular fluids of patients with fungal endophthalmitis by using a novel broad-range polymerase chain reaction (PCR) system.

methodsAfter informed consent was obtained, ocular fluid samples (aqueous humor or vitreous fluids) were collected from 497 patients (76 patients with infectious endophthalmitis including clinically suspected bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis and 421 patients with infectious or non-infectious uveitis). Forty ocular samples from non-infectious patients without ocular inflammation were collected as controls. Fungal ribosomal DNA (28 S rDNA) was measured by a quantitative real-time PCR assay.

resultsFungal 28 S rDNA of the major fungal species, such as Candida, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus, were detected by novel broad-range real-time PCR examination (>10(1) copies/ml). Fungal 28 S rDNA was detected in the ocular fluids of 11 patients with endophthalmitis or uveitis (11/497, 2.2%). All 11 positive samples were detected in the infectious endophthalmitis patients (11/76, 14.5%). These PCR-positive ocular fluids had high copy numbers of fungal 28 S rDNA (range, 1.7 × 10(3) to 7.9 × 10(6) copies/ml), which indicated the presence of fungal infection. Of the 11 patients who were PCR positive, further examinations led to a diagnosis of fungal endophthalmitis in ten patients. The fungal 28 S rDNA was detected in one non-infectious case (a false-positive case). In addition, there were two PCR false-negative cases that were clinically suspected of having fungal endophthalmitis.

conclusionsThis novel quantitative broad-range PCR of fungal 28 S rDNA is a useful tool for diagnosing endophthalmitis related to fungal infections.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAqueous HumorDNA, FungalEndophthalmitisEye Infections, FungalFemaleFungiGenome, FungalHumansMaleMiddle AgedMycological Typing TechniquesMycosesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionDNA, FungalRNA, Ribosomal, 28S

Identifiers

PMID22527320
OpenAlexW2038981357

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.