Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29178851›Full record

SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2017

Bacterial profile of ocular infections: a systematic review.

Mebrahtu Teweldemedhin, Hailay Gebreyesus, Ataklti Hailu Atsbaha, Solomon Weldegebreal Asgedom, Muthupandian Saravanan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 164 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
164citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

164 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 329 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Comments on "Prevalence ofNew microbes and new infections · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Potential of isoquinoline-alkaloid-richFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

104 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mebrahtu TeweldemedhinDepartment of Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Aksum University, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia. mebrie1216@gmail.com.
Hailay GebreyesusDepartment of Public health, College of Health Sciences, Aksum University, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Ataklti Hailu AtsbahaTigray Health and Research Laboratory, Mekell, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Solomon Weldegebreal AsgedomDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Muthupandian SaravananDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Mekelle University · ETAksum University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBacteria are the major contributor of ocular infections worldwide. Ocular infections, if left untreated, can damage the structures of the eye with possible blindness and visual impairments. This work was aimed to review the bacterial profile of ocular infections.

methodsLiterature search was made in different electronic databases; the review was systematically made to get concrete findings.

resultsAs far as this review, Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase negative Staphylococci, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are the leading isolates in ocular infections. Frequent pathogens of the respective clinical diagnose include Staphylococci, Streptococcus pyogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in blepharitis; Staphylococci, Streptococus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli in Conjunctivitis; Staphylococci, P. aeruginosa and E. coli in dacryocystitis; Coagulase negative Staphylococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in keratitis; Streptococcus viridians, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Coagulase negative Staphylococci in endophthalmitis diagnoses. Endogenous endophthalmitis is associated with Klebsiella pneumoniae whereas Coagulase negative Staphylococci and Bacillus spp. are common causes of post-operative and post-traumatic endophthalmitis. However, the predominant pathogens may not be exactly same in all areas of the world, in the United States for instance, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are the major causes of conjunctivitis.

conclusionGram positive bacteria are the major contributor of bacterial ocular infections. The distribution and proportion of bacterial isolates among clinical diagnoses varied but without exclusive anatomical restriction. To mitigate the burden of bacterial ocular infections, physicians should regard on risk reduction and comply with etiologic approach of diagnosis.

Indexed as

Eye Infections, BacterialGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaHumansBacterial profileOcular infectionReview

Identifiers

PMID29178851
PMCPMC5702129
OpenAlexW2768183619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.