Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26531051›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2016

Risk factors for low vision related functioning in the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial: a randomised trial comparing natamycin with voriconazole.

Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer, N Venkatesh Prajna, Tiruvengada Krishnan, Jeena Mascarenhas, Revathi Rajaraman, Muthiah Srinivasan, Anita Raghavan, Catherine E Oldenburg, Kieran S O'Brien, Kathryn J Ray and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00996736 (Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial), which is not on this 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 18% 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.

NCT00996736 phase3completednot on this map

Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2010 to 2012Enrolled323ConditionsCorneal Ulcer, Eye Infections, FungalArmsNatamycin, Voriconazole
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review of clinical and basic approaches of fungal keratitis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2016
    Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer Rose-NussbaumerFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
N Venkatesh PrajnaAravind Eye Care System at Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore.
Tiruvengada KrishnanAravind Eye Care System at Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore.
Jeena MascarenhasAravind Eye Care System at Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore.
Revathi RajaramanAravind Eye Care System at Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore.
Muthiah SrinivasanAravind Eye Care System at Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore.
Anita RaghavanAravind Eye Care System at Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore.
Catherine E OldenburgFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Kieran S O'BrienFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Kathryn J RayFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Travis C PorcoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Stephen D McLeodDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Nisha R AcharyaFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jeremy D KeenanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Thomas M LietmanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial Group
Aravind Eye Hospital · INSan Francisco Foundation · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Berkeley Clinical Scientist Development ProgramK12EY017269 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI POLSE, KENNETH A · 2005 to 2014
$8.6M
Myocotic Ulcer Treatment TrialU10EY018573 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LIETMAN, THOMAS M · 2009 to 2014
$3.7M
Predictions of Response to Treatment in Fungal KeratitisK23EY025025 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROSE-NUSSBAUMER, JENNIFER · 2015 to 2019
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K12 EY017269NEI NIH HHS K23 EY025025NEI NIH HHS L30 EY025876NEI NIH HHS U10 EY018573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I (MUTT I) was a double-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, which found that topical natamycin is superior to voriconazole for the treatment of filamentous fungal corneal ulcers. In this study, we determine risk factors for low vision-related quality of life in patients with fungal keratitis.

methodsThe Indian visual function questionnaire (IND-VFQ) was administered to MUTT I study participants at 3 months. Associations between patient and ulcer characteristics and IND-VFQ subscale score were assessed using generalised estimating equations.

results323 patients were enrolled in the trial, and 292 (90.4%) completed the IND-VFQ at 3 months. Out of a total possible score of 100, the average VFQ score for all participants was 81.3 (range 0-100, SD 23.6). After correcting for treatment arm, each logMAR line of worse baseline visual acuity in the affected eye resulted in an average 1.2 points decrease on VFQ at 3 months (95% CI -1.8 to 0.6, p<0.001). Those who required therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty had an average of 25.2 points decrease on VFQ after correcting for treatment arm (95% CI -31.8 to -18.5, p<0.001). Study participants who were unemployed had on average 28.5 points decrease on VFQ (95% CI -46.9 to -10.2, p=0.002) after correcting for treatment arm.

conclusionsMonocular vision loss from corneal opacity due to fungal keratitis reduced vision-related quality of life. Given the relatively high worldwide burden of corneal opacity, improving treatment outcomes of corneal infections should be a public health priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00996736.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAntifungal AgentsCorneal UlcerDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationEye Infections, FungalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNatamycinOphthalmic SolutionsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsAntifungal AgentsNatamycinOphthalmic SolutionsVoriconazoleCorneaInfection

Identifiers

PMID26531051
PMCPMC4965324
OpenAlexW2294458129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.