Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25833754›Full record

ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2015

[The German Acanthamoeba keratitis register: Initial results of a multicenter study].

L Daas, N Szentmáry, T Eppig, A Langenbucher, A Hasenfus, M Roth, M Saeger, B Nölle, B Lippmann, D Böhringer and 17 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2015. 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 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Complicated Diagnosis and Treatment of Rare PainlessJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Acanthamoeba keratitis: from pathophysiology to prevention, a contemporary clinical perspective.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Anti-Acanthamoeba metallopharmaceuticals: Amoebicidal activity and synergistic effect of copper(II) coordination compound.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Impact of implementation of polymerase chain reaction on diagnosis, treatment, and clinical course of Acanthamoeba keratitis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Impact of First Healthcare Provider onClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023
    Article
  15. Dual-Mode Gold Nanoparticle-Based Method for Early Detection ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. [Corneal wound healing-Pathophysiology and principles].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Article
  19. [Coinfections in contact lens-associated mycotic keratitis with Pseudomonas or Acanthamoeba].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Article
  20. Challenges in Acanthamoeba Keratitis: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

L DaasKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes UKS, Kirrbergerstr. 100, 66424, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. loay.daas@uks.eu.
N SzentmáryKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes UKS, Kirrbergerstr. 100, 66424, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
T EppigExperimentelle Ophthalmologie, Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
A LangenbucherExperimentelle Ophthalmologie, Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
A HasenfusInstitut für Allgemeine und spezielle Pathologie, Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
M RothUniversitätsaugenklinik, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
M SaegerKlinik für Ophthalmologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland.
B NölleKlinik für Ophthalmologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland.
B LippmannKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.
D BöhringerKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.
T ReinhardKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.
C KelbschUniversitätsaugenklinik, Tübingen, Deutschland.
E MessmerAugenklinik der LMU, München, Deutschland.
U PleyerUniversitätsaugenklinik, Berlin Charité, Berlin, Deutschland.
S RotersUniversitätsaugenklinik, Köln, Deutschland.
A ZhivovUniversitätsaugenklinik, Rostock, Deutschland.
K EngelmannAugenklinik Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Deutschland.
J SchreckerKKH Rudolf Virchow, Glauchau, Deutschland.
L ZumhagenUniversitätsaugenklinik, Münster, Deutschland.
H ThiemeUniversitätsaugenklinik, Magdeburg, Deutschland.
R DarawshaUniversitätsaugenklinik, Essen, Deutschland.
T Meyer-Ter-VehnUniversitätsaugenklinik, Würzburg, Deutschland.
B DickUniversitätsaugenklinik, Bochum, Deutschland.
I GörschUniversitätsaugenklinik, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Deutschland.
M HermelUniversitätsaugenklinik, Aachen, Deutschland.
M KohlhaasAugenklinik Dortmund, Dortmund, Deutschland.
B SeitzKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes UKS, Kirrbergerstr. 100, 66424, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
Universitätsaugenklinik Magdeburg · DEOphthalmology Clinic · DESaarland University · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEKlinikum Chemnitz · DEKlinikum Dortmund · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIn September 2011 the cornea section of the German Ophthalmological Society (DOG) established the first German Acanthamoeba keratitis registry. The data of this multicenter survey are being collected, compiled and evaluated at the Department of Ophthalmology at the Saarland University. The aim of this article is to present an intermediate report. PATIENTS AND

methodsData from 172 eyes with Acanthamoeba keratitis were collected during the last 10 years. For this interim report we actually evaluated 121 eyes (60.2 % female patients, average age 41.3 years) and collected the following data: date of onset of symptoms, date and method of diagnosis, initial diagnosis, anamnestic data, clinical symptoms and signs at diagnosis and during follow-up, conservative and surgical therapy. Criteria for inclusion in the Acanthamoeba registry was the established diagnosis of an Acanthamoeba keratitis with at least one of the methods described in this article.

resultsAcanthamoeba keratitis could be histologically proven in 55.3 % of the cases, via PCR in 25.6 %, with confocal microscopy in 20.4 % and using in vitro cultivation in 15.5 %. Clinical symptoms and signs in Acanthamoeba keratitis were pain in 67.0 %, ring infiltrates in 53.4 %, pseudodendritiform epitheliopathy in 11.7 % and keratoneuritis in 5.8 %. In 47.6 % of the cases the initial diagnosis was herpes simplex virus keratitis followed by bacterial keratitis in 25.2 % and fungal keratitis in 3.9 %. Acanthamoeba keratitis was the correct initial diagnosis in only 23.2 % of cases. The average time period between first symptoms and diagnosis was 2.8 ± 4.0 months (range 0-23 months). A triple therapy with Brolene® Lavasept® and antibiotic eye drops at least 5 ×/day was used in 54.5 % of eyes (n = 66). Penetrating keratoplasty was performed in 40.4 %, in 18 cases in combination with cryotherapy of the cornea. The mean graft diameter was 7.9 ± 1.1 mm (range 3.5-11.0 mm). The final visual acuity (Snellen visual acuity chart at 5 m) was comparable in the two groups of eyes with (5/40 ± 5/25) and without (5/32 ± 5/25) keratoplasty.

conclusionAcanthamoeba keratitis is a rare and often very late diagnosed disease and two thirds of the cases were initially misdiagnosed. The early recognition of the typical symptoms is crucial for the prognosis of the disease. All ophthalmological departments in Germany are invited to submit further data of all confirmed cases (berthold.seitz@uks.eu), whether retrospectively or prospectively in order to generate an adequate standardized diagnostic and therapeutic approach for this potentially devastating disease.

Indexed as

RegistriesAcanthamoeba KeratitisFemaleGermanyHumansKeratoplasty, PenetratingMalePilot ProjectsPrevalenceRisk FactorsSymptom AssessmentTreatment OutcomeDiagnosisMulticenter studyPrognosisSymptomsTherapy

Identifiers

PMID25833754
OpenAlexW303783630

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.