Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30696908›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

New insights into culture negative endophthalmitis by unbiased next generation sequencing.

Dhanshree Deshmukh, Joveeta Joseph, Moumita Chakrabarti, Savitri Sharma, Rajagopalaboopathi Jayasudha, Kalyana C Sama, Bhavani Sontam, Mudit Tyagi, Raja Narayanan, S Shivaji

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.2field-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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Areas of uncertainty in endophthalmitis care.World journal of clinical cases · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Intraocular inflammation following intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dhanshree DeshmukhJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Joveeta JosephJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. joveeta@lvpei.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8421-1977
Moumita ChakrabartiJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Savitri SharmaJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Rajagopalaboopathi JayasudhaJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Kalyana C SamaJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Bhavani SontamJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Mudit TyagiSmt. Kannuri Santhamma Centre for vitreoretinal diseases, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Raja NarayananSmt. Kannuri Santhamma Centre for vitreoretinal diseases, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
S ShivajiJhaveri Microbiology Centre, Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
L V Prasad Eye Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proof-of-concept, study to investigate the presence of microorganisms in presumed infectious endophthalmitis using Next generation sequencing (NGS) was carried out in vitreous biopsies from 34 patients with endophthalmitis, and thirty patients undergoing surgery for non-infectious retinal disorders as controls. Following DNA extraction using the Qiagen mini kit and PCR amplification of the V3-V4 regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA and ITS 2 region of fungus, they samples were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 Machine. Paired reads were curated, taxonomically labeled, and filtered. Culture based diagnosis was achieved in 15/34 (44%) patients while NGS diagnosed the presence of microbes in 30/34 (88%) patients (bacteria in 26/30, fungi in 2/30, mixed infections in 2/30 cases). All 30 controls were negative for bacteria or fungus by NGS. There was good agreement between culture and NGS for culture-positive cases. Among culture negative cases, DNA of common culturable bacteria were identified like Streptococcus sp., Staphylococcus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Gemella sp., Haemophilus sp., Acinetobacter sp. The specificity of NGS with culture and clinical diagnosis was found to be 20% and 100% respectively and sensitivity of NGS with culture and clinical diagnosis was found to be 87.5% and 88% respectively. NGS appears to be promising diagnostic platform for the diagnosis of infectious culture negative endophthalmitis.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBacteriaBiopsyChildChild, PreschoolEndophthalmitisFemaleFungiHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedProof of Concept StudyRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID30696908
PMCPMC6351655
OpenAlexW2913266054

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.