Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29379104›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2018

Slit lamps and lenses: a potential source of nosocomial infections?

Bianka Sobolewska, Michael Buhl, Jan Liese, Focke Ziemssen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comprehensive Compositional Analysis of the Slit Lamp Bacteriota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Impurities in Drug Vials Intended for Intravitreal Medication.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2020
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bianka SobolewskaCenter for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany. bianka.sob@gmx.de.
Michael BuhlInstitute of Medical Mircrobiology and Hygiene, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9337-9889
Jan LieseInstitute of Medical Mircrobiology and Hygiene, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany.
Focke ZiemssenCenter for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3873-0581
University of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study was to evaluate the bacterial contamination level of contact surfaces on slit lamps and the grip areas of lenses.

methodsWithin unannounced audits, two regions of the slit lamps (headrest and joystick), indirect ophthalmoscopy devices, and ultrasound probes were obtained with rayon-tipped swab. Non-contact lenses used for indirect fundoscopy were pressed on RODAC (Replicate Organism Detection and Counting) plates. One hundred and eighty-one surfaces were sampled. The total number of colony-forming units was assessed and bacterial species were identified. Spa-typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed from Staphylococcus aureus isolates.

resultsAmong the total bacterial isolates from ophthalmological equipment (lenses: 51 of 78, slit lamps: 43 of 88, ophthalmoscopy helmets: 3 of 8, ultrasound probes: 2 of 7), coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) was most frequently found, followed by Micrococcus spp. (lenses vs. slit lamps: P < 0.001 and P = 0.01, respectively). The bacterial contamination of lenses (76%) was significantly higher than that of slit lamps (54%) (P < 0.003). A significantly higher contamination with CNS was observed on lenses from residents vs. from consultants (78% vs. 35%, P = 0.01). A total of seven different spa-types of S. aureus were isolated. No correlation was found between S. aureus contamination of different ophthalmological equipments (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, ρ = 0.04, P = 0.75). Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was not detected.

conclusionBacterial species of the normal skin flora were isolated from the ophthalmological equipment. The bacterial contamination of the portable devices was significantly higher than that of slit lamps. Therefore, proper hygiene of the mobile instruments should be monitored in order to prevent transmission of bacteria in residents and consultants.

Indexed as

Equipment ContaminationBacteriaColony Count, MicrobialCross InfectionHumansOphthalmoscopesSlit LampUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID29379104
PMCPMC5997676
OpenAlexW2794225706

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.