Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25384628›Full record

ArticleInternational ophthalmology2015

Susceptibility of bacterial isolates to vancomycin and ceftazidime from patients with endophthalmitis: Is there a need to change the empirical therapy in suspected bacterial endophthalmitis?

Ashok Kumar Reddy, Raja Rami Reddy, Muralidhar Rao Paruvelli, Srinivas Ambatipudi, Alka Rani, Sikander A K Lodhi, Juturi Maruthi Lokabhi Reddy, K Ramakanth Reddy, Niraj Pandey, Rituraj Videkar and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Intravitreal triple therapy with vancomycin, ceftazidime, and moxifloxacin for bacterial endophthalmitis: A Twelve-year experience.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Article
  4. Endophthalmitis in Silicone Oil-Filled Eyes.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. A Review of Antimicrobial Therapy for Infectious Uveitis of the Posterior Segment.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2018
    Review
  8. Safety of intravitreal quinupristin/dalfopristin in an animal model.International journal of ophthalmology · 2016
    Article
  9. 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

16 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Ashok Kumar ReddyGHR Micro Diagnostics, Dwarakapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, 500082, India. ashokreddyg999@yahoo.com.
Raja Rami ReddyNeoRetina Eye Care Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Muralidhar Rao ParuvelliMaxivision Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Srinivas AmbatipudiNeoRetina Eye Care Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Alka RaniNeoRetina Eye Care Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Sikander A K LodhiSarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Juturi Maruthi Lokabhi ReddySarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
K Ramakanth ReddyMedivision Eye and Health Care Centre, Hyderabad, India.
Niraj PandeyAravind Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Rituraj VidekarVasan Eye Care, Hyderabad, India.
Manish Kumar SinhaVasan Eye Care, Hyderabad, India.
Ajit Babu MajjiCentre for Sight, Hyderabad, India.
Nilanjana Deb-JorderMaxivision Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Atul Kumar SahuAgarwal Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Jyostna MyneniKrishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India.
Anina AbrahamSwarup Eye Centre, Hyderabad, India.
Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital · INVasan Eye Care Hospital · INAravind Eye Hospital · INCentre for Sight · INCS Diagnostics · DEDr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital · INKrishna Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To review the susceptibility of bacterial isolates to ceftazidime and vancomycin isolated from patients with endophthalmitis. Microbiology records of patients with endophthalmitis between June 2010 and May 2013 were reviewed. Vitreous and AC fluids obtained from patients with endophthalmitis were subjected to direct microscopy examination and culture. Antibiotic susceptibility of the isolates was performed by Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method. Resistant to ceftazidime in Gram negative bacteria (GNB) by disk diffusion method is confirmed by minimum inhibitory concentration using E test. Culture was positive for bacteria/Fungi in 224/356 patients (62.9 %). Out of 224 patients, 191 (85.2 %) patients showed bacterial growth and 33 (14.0 %) showed fungal growth. Mixed bacterial infection was seen in five patients. Among the GNB, 23/123 (18 %) of the isolates were resistant to ceftazidime, and all the Gram positive bacteria 73/73 (100 %) were susceptible to vancomycin. Sixteen of 123 (13 %) GNB were resistant to amikacin. Although there is an increase in resistance to ceftazidime compared to amikacin in GNB, amikacin intravitreal injection is associated with macular toxicity and no single antibiotic has full coverage for all GNB. Combination of vancomycin and ceftazidime empiric therapy can be continued in patients with suspected endophthalmitis and treatment is modified based on clinical response and susceptibility results.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAqueous HumorBacteriaCeftazidimeEndophthalmitisEye Infections, BacterialFollow-Up StudiesHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRetrospective StudiesVancomycinVitreous BodyAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftazidimeVancomycinAmikacinCeftazidimeEndophthalmitisGram negative bacilliVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID25384628
OpenAlexW1968594847

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.