ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2018
Prevalence of bacteria and fungi in samples of cornea preservation fluid.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of Temperature, Bottle Type, and Amphotericin B on Fungal Detection in Corneal Preservation Media Using the BACT/ALERT SystemMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Microbiological screening of corneas stored in organ culture medium at Lions Eye Bank of Western Australia from 2011 to 2022.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Killing efficacy of a new hypothermic corneal storage medium against the micro-organisms frequently found in human donor cornea intended for transplantation.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Corneal graft melting: a systematic review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecipients of corneal transplants are at risk of healthcare-associated infections, which, apart from other causes of surgical site infections, may also occur as a result of the transfer of infected corneal tissue. In this study we assessed the risk of bacterial and fungal infections based on the results of routine microbiological testing of cornea preservation fluid samples. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe examined a total of 725 samples of corneal preservation fluid, obtained during a period of 3 years (2011-2013). Corneal preservation fluid samples were cultured and identified in accordance with standard microbiological methods.
resultsThe analysis comprised 725 samples of corneal preservation fluid, of which 32 (4.4%) samples tested positively in microbiological cultures. In total, 34 strains of bacteria and fungi were cultured. Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and fungi comprised 85.3%, 8.8% and 5.9% of these strains, respectively. Analysis of the susceptibility of the cultured bacterial isolates to gentamicin was also performed, as this antibiotic is present in the composition of corneal preservation fluid. Among the cultured bacterial strains, 10 (33.3%) were resistant to gentamicin. None of the 32 patients who received a cornea stored in preservation fluid contaminated with bacteria and/or fungi demonstrated infectious complications in the surgical site within 1 year following cornea transplantation.
conclusionsWe postulate that perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in cornea transplant recipients is important in preventing bacterial infections derived from the donor cornea. We believe that the addition of an antifungal agent to commercially available cornea preservation fluids should also be considered.
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.