Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30810837›Full record

ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2019

[The German keratomycosis registry : Initial results of a multicenter survey].

M Roth, L Daas, A Renner-Wilde, N Cvetkova-Fischer, M Saeger, M Herwig-Carl, M Matthaei, A Fekete, V Kakkassery, G Walther and 15 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ophthalmic registries for rare eye diseases.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Spectrum and resistance in bacterial infections of the ocular surface in a German tertiary referral center 2009-2019.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. [Purpureocillium lilacinum : Atypical pathogen of mycotic keratitis in an immunocompetent patient].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. [Coinfections in contact lens-associated mycotic keratitis with Pseudomonas or Acanthamoeba].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. First case ofMedical mycology case reports · 2021
    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

25 authors at 16 institutions in 1 country.

M RothKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsaugenklinik Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. mathiasroth@gmx.net.
L DaasKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes UKS, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
A Renner-WildeAugenklinik des Klinikums der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, München, Deutschland.
N Cvetkova-FischerKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Deutschland.
M SaegerKlinik für Ophthalmologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland.
M Herwig-CarlUniversitätsaugenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
M MatthaeiZentrum für Augenheilkunde, Uniklinik Köln, Köln, Deutschland.
A FeketeKlinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
V KakkasseryKlinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
G WaltherNationales Referenzzentrum für Invasive Pilzinfektionen NRZMyk, Leibniz Institut für Naturstoff-Forschung und Infektionsbiologie - Hans-Knöll-Institut, Jena, Deutschland.
M von Lilienfeld-ToalNationales Referenzzentrum für Invasive Pilzinfektionen NRZMyk, Leibniz Institut für Naturstoff-Forschung und Infektionsbiologie - Hans-Knöll-Institut, Jena, Deutschland.
C MertensAugenklinik Marzahn, Berlin, Deutschland.
J LenkKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
J MehlanKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
C FischerAugenklinik, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
M FuestKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Uniklinik RWTHA Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland.
S KrollErnst von Bergmann Klinikum, Potsdam, Deutschland.
W BayoudhAugenklinik, Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Deutschland.
A ViestenzKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes UKS, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
A FringsKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsaugenklinik Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
C R MacKenzieInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Krankenhaushygiene, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
E M MessmerAugenklinik des Klinikums der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, München, Deutschland.
B SeitzKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes UKS, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
O KurzaiNationales Referenzzentrum für Invasive Pilzinfektionen NRZMyk, Leibniz Institut für Naturstoff-Forschung und Infektionsbiologie - Hans-Knöll-Institut, Jena, Deutschland.
G GeerlingKlinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsaugenklinik Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Ophthalmology Clinic · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde Universitätsklinikum Regensburg · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DECentrum für Integrierte Onkologie · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEJena University Hospital · DEKlinikum Dortmund · DEKlinikum Ernst von Bergmann · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde am Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus · DELeibniz-Institut für Naturstoff-Forschung und Infektionsbiologie e. V. - Hans-Knöll-Institut (HKI) · DEUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DEUniversitätsmedizin Rostock · DEUniversity Hospital Bonn · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeMycotic keratitis is a serious but relatively rare disease. No targeted data collection in Germany existed until the foundation of the German Pilz-Keratitis Register in 2015. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe inclusion of retrospective and prospective patients was carried out. INCLUSION CRITERIA: diagnosis confirmed by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), culture, histology or confocal microscopy (IVCM). Collected parameters: date of symptom onset, date and method of diagnosis, risk factors, visual acuity and findings at admission and at follow-up, conservative and surgical treatment.

resultsBy January 2018, a total of 102 eyes from the years 2000-2017 were reported from 16 centers (64.3% female, mean age 52 years, range 18-95 years). The initial diagnosis was made correctly in only 20.6% of cases. The mean time to correct diagnosis was 31.7 ± 46.9 (0-296) days. The diagnosis was confirmed in cultures in 74.5%, histologically in 30.4%, by PCR in 38.2% and IVCM in 27.4%. Fungal species identified were: 36.7% Fusarium spp., 35.8% Candida spp., 6.4% Aspergillus spp. and 21.1% other. The most important risk factor was the use of contact lenses. The most commonly used antifungal agent was voriconazole (64.7%) followed by amphotericin B (37.2%). Penetrating keratoplasty was performed in 65.7% of the cases and 8.8% of the affected eyes had to be enucleated. The visual acuity of the entire study population increased from the initial 0.16 ± 0.25 (0.001-1.0) decimal to 0.28 ± 0.34 (0-1.0) decimal.

conclusionThe correct diagnosis of fungal keratitis is often significantly delayed. The treatment can be very difficult and keratoplasty is often necessary. In order to gain a better understanding of this disease, to recognize previously unknown risk factors and, if necessary, a change in the spectrum of pathogens and to identify approaches to treatment optimization, the fungal keratitis registry will be continued.

Indexed as

Eye Infections, FungalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntifungal AgentsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRegistriesRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAntifungal AgentsCandidaCorneaFusariumInfectionMycosis

Identifiers

PMID30810837
OpenAlexW2920438951

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.