Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30505865›Full record

ReviewMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2018

A Review of Antimicrobial Therapy for Infectious Uveitis of the Posterior Segment.

Ahmed B Sallam, Kyle A Kirkland, Richard Barry, Mohamed Kamel Soliman, Tayyeba K Ali, Sue Lightman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. A Case of Chorioretinitis with Retinal Angiomatous Proliferation.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ahmed B SallamJones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas, USA.
Kyle A KirklandJones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas, USA.
Richard BarryDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK.
Mohamed Kamel SolimanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut University, Egypt.
Tayyeba K AliJones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas, USA.
Sue LightmanUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USAssiut University · EGGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of infectious posterior uveitis represents a therapeutic challenge for ophthalmologists. The eye is a privileged site, maintained by blood ocular barriers, which limits penetration of systemic antimicrobials into the posterior segment. In addition, topical and subconjunctival therapies are incapable of producing sufficient drug concentrations, intraocularly. Posterior infectious uveitis can be caused by bacteria, virus, fungi, or protozoa. Mode of treatment varies greatly based on the infectious etiology. Certain drugs have advantages over others in the treatment of infectious uveitis. Topical and systemic therapies are often employed in the treatment of ocular infection, yet the route of treatment can have limitations based on penetration, concentration, and duration. The introduction of intravitreal antimicrobial therapy has advanced the management of intraocular infections. Being able to bypass blood-ocular barriers allows high drug concentrations to be delivered directly to the posterior segment with minimal systemic absorption. However, because the difference between the therapeutic and the toxic doses of some antimicrobial drugs falls within a narrow concentration range, intravitreal therapy could be associated with ocular toxicity risks. In many cases of infectious uveitis, combination of intravitreal and systemic therapies are necessary. In this comprehensive review, the authors aimed at reviewing clinically relevant data regarding intraocular and systemic antimicrobial therapy for posterior segment infectious uveitis. The review also discussed the evolving trends in intraocular treatment, and elaborated on antibiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and adverse effects.

Indexed as

AntibacterialAntifungalAntimicrobialsAntiviralEndophthalmitisInfectious UveitisIntracameralIntraocular InfectionIntravitrealRetinitisToxoplasma

Identifiers

PMID30505865
PMCPMC6229674
OpenAlexW2996337219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.