ArticleJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2013
Candida dubliniensis endophthalmitis: five cases over 15 years.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-coronavirus disease bilateral endogenous fungal endophthalmitis with full visual acuity recovery: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the Biology, Virulence, and General Aspects ofInfection and drug resistance · 2024Review
- Molecular characterization of fungal endophthalmitis and keratitis caused by yeasts.Medical mycology · 2022Article
- Combined Candida dubliniensis and Candida albicans Keratitis following a Chemical Injury.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2019Article
- Circumferential iris lesions in a male with cirrhosis caused by Candida dublinensis endophthalmitis.IDCases · 2019Article
- Article
- Rare case of exogenous Candida dubliniensis endophthalmitis: a case report and brief review of the literature.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2014Article
- A Case of Bilateral EndogenousCase reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have shown that the recently identified organism Candida dubliniensis is less pathogenic than the more common Candida albicans. Due to its rare nature, C. dubliniensis has been previously reported as the causative organism in endophthalmitis in only three cases. We undertook a multicenter, retrospective, consecutive case series to describe the clinical features and outcomes of patients with culture-proven C. dubliniensis endophthalmitis. Medical records were reviewed for all patients with C. dubliniensis endophthalmitis on vitreous/aqueous cultures from June 1998 to June 2013 from all public hospitals throughout Queensland, Australia.
resultsSix eyes from five patients were identified - four males and one female aged from 21 to 55 years (mean 37 years). Four patients were intravenous drug users and four patients had hepatitis C. All five patients were treated with systemic antifungal therapy and intravitreal antifungal injections, and all required vitrectomy. Two eyes developed retinal detachment over the course of the endophthalmitis. Five eyes had visual outcomes of 20/60 or better, and one eye had a poor outcome with final visual acuity of hand movements only. There was no associated mortality, and no infected eyes required enucleation or evisceration.
conclusionsC. dubliniensis endophthalmitis is a rare condition which occurs mainly in intravenous drug users and can occur in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients. Unlike C. albicans endophthalmitis, C. dubliniensis endophthalmitis has reasonable visual outcomes and does not appear to be associated with high mortality.
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.