ArticleEye (London, England)2018
Slit lamps and lenses: a potential source of nosocomial infections?
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- An assessment of bacterial transmission via rebound tonometry: AnOpen veterinary journal · 2024Article
- Comprehensive Compositional Analysis of the Slit Lamp Bacteriota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- The eye as the discrete but defensible portal of coronavirus infection.The ocular surface · 2021Review
- Review of Hygiene and Disinfection Recommendations for Outpatient Glaucoma Care: A COVID Era Update.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Review
- Bacterial Cross-Contamination in a Veterinary Ophthalmology Setting.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Impurities in Drug Vials Intended for Intravitreal Medication.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.