ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019
Diagnostic value of pediatric blood culture bottles for acute postoperative endophthalmitis.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveillance of post-cataract endophthalmitis at a tertiary referral center: a 10-year critical evaluation.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2021Article
- Ocular bacterial infections at a tertiary eye center in China: a 5-year review of pathogen distribution and antibiotic sensitivity.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report our experience using conventional culture methods (CM) and pediatric blood culture bottles (PBCBs) for vitreous sample culture of acute postoperative endophthalmitis.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital das Clinicas, HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, BR, from January 2010 to December 2015, and it included 54 patients with clinically suspected acute postoperative endophthalmitis. Vitreous samples were obtained by vitreous tap or vitrectomy. Samples from January 2010 to December 2011 were cultivated in CM, whereas samples from January 2012 to December 2015 were inoculated in PBCBs. The measured outcome was the yield of positive cultures.
resultsTwenty cases were included in the CM group, and 34 cases were included in the PBCB group. The yield of positive cultures in PBCBs (64.7%) was significantly higher than that in conventional CM (35%, p=0.034). Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus viridans were the two most commonly found agents.
conclusionPBCBs can be used successfully in clinically suspected endophthalmitis. The method showed a higher yield of positive cultures than the conventional method. This technique appears to have several advantages over the traditional method: it saves time, as only one medium needs to be inoculated; transportation to a laboratory is easier than in the traditional method, and there is no need to maintain a supply of fresh agar media. The use of PBCBs may be recommended as the primary method for microbiological diagnosis and is especially suitable for office settings and remote clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.