Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30893373›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis.

Passara Jongkhajornpong, Jirat Nimworaphan, Kaevalin Lekhanont, Varintorn Chuckpaiwong, Sasivimol Rattanasiri

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A comparison of antimicrobial regimen outcomes and antibiogram development in microbial keratitis: a prospective cohort study in Alexandria, Egypt.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Passara JongkhajornpongDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8203-2353
Jirat NimworaphanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kaevalin LekhanontDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Varintorn ChuckpaiwongDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sasivimol RattanasiriDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mahidol University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A retrospective medical record review including 344 patients who were admitted with severe microbial keratitis at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2010 to December 2016 was conducted. Causative organisms were identified in 136 patients based on positive culture results, pathological reports and confocal microscopy findings. Eighty-six eyes (63.24%) were bacterial keratitis, while 50 eyes (36.76%) were fungal keratitis. Demographics, clinical history, and clinical findings from slit-lamp examinations were collected. We found statistically significant differences between fungal and bacterial infections in terms of age, occupation, contact lens use, underlying ocular surface diseases, previous ocular surgery, referral status, and duration since onset (p < 0.05). For clinical features, depth of lesions, feathery edge, satellite lesions and presence of endothelial plaque were significantly higher in fungal infection compared to bacterial infection with odds ratios of 2.97 (95%CI 1.43-6.15), 3.92 (95%CI 1.62-9.45), 6.27 (95%CI 2.26-17.41) and 8.00 (95%CI 3.45-18.59), respectively. After multivariate analysis of all factors, there were 7 factors including occupation, history of trauma, duration since onset, depth of lesion, satellite lesions, endothelial plaque and stromal melting that showed statistical significance at p < 0.05. We constructed the prediction model based on these 7 identified factors. The model demonstrated a favorable receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) with correct classification, sensitivity and specificity of 81.48%, 70% and 88.24%, respectively at the optimal cut-off point. In conclusion, we propose potential prediction factors and prediction model as an adjunctive tool for clinicians to rapidly differentiate fungal infection from bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis patients.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsKeratitisModels, BiologicalMycosesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30893373
PMCPMC6426210
OpenAlexW2923534071

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.