ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2016
Persistently Vitreous Culture-Positive Exogenous Fungal Endophthalmitis.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exogenous Fusarium Endophthalmitis: Clinical Features, Treatment Modalities, and Visual Outcomes.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- International consensuses and guidelines on diagnosing and managing fungal endophthalmitis by the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS), the Academy of the Asia-Pacific Professors of Ophthalmology (AAPPO), and the Asia-Pacific Society of Ocular Inflammation and Infection (APSOII).Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Spectrum of signs, symptoms, and treatment in amphotericin B-resistantIndian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Infectious endophthalmitis leading to evisceration: spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens and antibacterial susceptibility profile.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo report the clinical settings, microbiological isolates, and best-corrected visual acuities (BCVA) of patients with persistently culture-positive exogenous fungal endophthlamitis.
designRetrospective consecutive case series.
methodsSetting: Tertiary referral center. PATIENT POPULATION: Sixteen eyes of 16 patients with at least 2 consecutive positive vitreous cultures between 1981 and 2015.
interventionsIntravitreal antifungal injection, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).
main outcome measureClinical settings, microbiologic isolates, BCVA.
resultsThe most common clinical settings were after cataract surgery (9/16, 56%), glaucoma surgery (4/16, 25%), and trauma (2/16, 13%). The most common single fungal isolate was Candida (4/16, 25%), but 75% of all isolates were molds. Treatment for presumed bacterial endophthalmitis was given initially in 14 patients (88%). All patients underwent a vitrectomy during the course of their treatment, and all received intravitreal or systemic antifungal therapy. The mean initial BCVA was 1.76 ± 0.9 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ≈20/1200), and the mean final BCVA was 1.84 ± 1.2 logMAR (≈20/1400, P = .83). The 9 patients (56%) who had intraocular lens (IOL) and capsular bag removals had better final BCVAs than those who did not (P = .011). The BCVAs were similar in eyes with yeast and mold (P = .37). The visual acuity at the last follow-up was ≥20/40 in 13% (2/16), ≥20/400 in 50% (8/16), and no light perception in 25% (4/16).
conclusionsCandida was the single most common isolate, but the majority of isolates were molds. Eyes managed with PPV and removal of the IOL and capsular bag had better visual outcomes. Persistently culture-positive fungal endophthalmitis was associated with poor final visual acuities.
Indexed as
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.