Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22744392›Full record

Trial reportEye (London, England)2012

Predictors of outcome in fungal keratitis.

N Venkatesh Prajna, T Krishnan, J Mascarenhas, M Srinivasan, C E Oldenburg, C M Toutain-Kidd, A Sy, S D McLeod, M E Zegans, N R Acharya and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

N Venkatesh PrajnaAravind Eye Care System, Madurai, India.
T Krishnan
J Mascarenhas
M Srinivasan
C E Oldenburg
C M Toutain-Kidd
A Sy
S D McLeod
M E Zegans
N R Acharya
T M Lietman
T C Porco
Aravind Eye Hospital · INSan Francisco Foundation · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USDartmouth College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyse predictors of clinical outcome in fungal keratitis.

methodsData was collected during a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial of treatment for fungal keratitis. Clinical features at presentation and demographics were collected at the enrollment visit for all patients. Pre-specified clinical outcomes included 3-month visual acuity and infiltrate/scar size, time to re-epithelialization, and corneal perforation. A separate multivariable model with each outcome as the dependent variable included all predictor variables.

resultsPredictors for worse 3-month visual acuity include older age (P=0.024), worse presentation visual acuity (P<0.001), larger infiltrate size at presentation (P<0.001), and pigmented ulcer (P=0.030). Larger infiltrate size at presentation was a significant predictor of worse 3-month infiltrate/scar size (P<0.001). Larger epithelial defect size was a significant predictor of perforation (P=0.0013). Predictors of longer time to re-epithelialization include infiltrate size at presentation (P<0.001) and older age (P=0.025).

conclusionUlcer severity at presentation is highly predictive of worse outcomes. Presentation of clinical characteristics such as baseline acuity and infiltrate scar can provide important information to clinicians about prognosis, and may help guide management and treatment decisions. Prevention of corneal ulcer remains important, as it is difficult to change the course of the ulcer once it has begun.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAntifungal AgentsCorneal PerforationCorneal UlcerDebridementDouble-Blind MethodEye Infections, FungalFemaleHumansMaleNatamycinOphthalmic SolutionsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePrognosisProspective StudiesPyrimidinesAntifungal AgentsNatamycinOphthalmic SolutionsPyrimidinesTriazolesVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID22744392
PMCPMC3443844
OpenAlexW2021005037

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.