ArticleMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2019
Microbiological Profile of Corneal Ulcers at a Tertiary Referral Center.
Article in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of antimicrobial resistance genes on the ocular surface of patients with corneal infections in California and Malawi.International health · 2025Article
- Resistance trend in bacteria isolated from corneal ulcers: A retrospective analysis from Pakistan.PloS one · 2025Article
- Studies on Ocular Infection.Oman medical journal · 2024Article
- Investigating the effect of eye drops based on iodine nanoparticles in the treatment of corneal ulcers in rabbit eyes.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2023Article
- Bacterial Ocular Infections in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Oman medical journal · 2023Review
- Microbiological Profile of Ocular Infection: A Large Retrospective Study.Iranian journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe patient demographics, microbiological profile, and antibiotic susceptibility of corneal ulcer at a tertiary referral center to improve and optimize diagnosis and treatment of this potentially blinding entity and to reduce antibiotic misuse. Detailed external and slit-lamp bio-microscopic examination of 123 consecutive patients with suspected corneal ulcer was performed at an ophthalmology clinic. Corneal scraping was carried out under slit-lamp bio-microscopy. The obtained material was inoculated on culture media and smeared on a slide for Gram's staining for morphological identification of bacteria and fungus. For samples that developed colony in culture media, antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed. In a significant percentage of patients (72%) neither bacterial agents nor fungi were the cause of corneal ulcer. Of the 34 culture-proven corneal ulcers, in 79% of the cases, bacteria were detected while in 21% of cases, fungi were found. Of the 27 bacterial corneal ulcers, the majority were (67%) caused by Gram-positive bacteria, of which 50% were
Indexed as
Identifiers
30923718PMC6433196W2983370396What 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.