ArticleInternational ophthalmology2019
Role of in vivo confocal microscopy in the diagnosis of infectious keratitis.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthokeratology lens-relatedThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Pooled it
- The combined use of in vivo confocal microscopy and optical coherence tomography in monitoring corneal infections.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reverse endothelial scraping technique for refractory deep infectious keratitis: Novel surgical technique and outcome evaluation.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Bibliometric analysis and data visualization on drug delivery systems for infectious keratitis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- In vivo corneal microscopy: from image to insight - where are we going?Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Review
- Article
- Nested PCR as a superior diagnostic method for Acanthamoeba keratitis compared to conventional techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy Findings in Corneal Stromal Dystrophies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In vivo Confocal Microscopy for Corneal and Ocular Surface Pathologies: A Comprehensive Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Artificial-Intelligence-Enhanced Analysis of In Vivo Confocal Microscopy in Corneal Diseases: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Three cases of recalcitrant Paecilomyces keratitis in Southern California within a short period.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2024Article
- Differentiation of acanthamoeba keratitis from other non-acanthamoeba keratitis: Risk factors and clinical features.PloS one · 2024Article
- New Frontiers inBiology · 2023Review
- Updates in Diagnostic Imaging for Infectious Keratitis: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diagnosis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- In-vivo corneal confocal microscopy: Imaging analysis, biological insights and future directions.Communications biology · 2023Review
- Immunity to pathogenic fungi in the eye.Seminars in immunology · 2023Review
- Automatic Diagnosis of Infectious Keratitis Based on Slit Lamp Images Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Microbial keratitis in Sao Paulo, Brazil: a 10-year review of laboratory results, epidemiological features, and risk factors.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2023Review
- Modern Technologies in Diagnosis of Fungal Keratitis (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2023Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the utility of in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) in the diagnosis of infectious keratitis (IK).
methodsRetrospective chart review of 46 patients with a final diagnosis of IK were included in the study. All patients received IVCM corneal imaging using the Heidelberg Retinal Tomography III system. All available scans were randomized and analyzed in a masked fashion. Sensitivity and specificity of IVCM in diagnosing bacterial keratitis (BK), Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK), fungal keratitis (FK), and HSV viral keratitis (VK) were assessed.
resultsThe pooled sensitivity and specificity of IVCM in identifying atypical IK (AK and FK cases combined) were 85.3% (95% CI 68.2-94.5%) and 100% (95% CI 74.7-100%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of IVCM in identifying BK were 66.7% (95% CI 35.4-88.7%) and 89.2% (95% CI 73.4-96.5%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of IVCM in identifying VK were 100% (95% CI 46.3-100%) and 93.2% (95% CI 80.3-98.2%). Additionally, IVCM was able to make the correct diagnosis in 8 out of the 11 atypical keratitis cases misdiagnosed clinically. In the AK subgroup, IVCM was more accurate than clinical assessment (16 vs. 11). In the FK subgroup, IVCM were as accurate as clinical assessment, but did correct one misdiagnosed cases by identfying fungal hyphae.
conclusionIVCM is an non-invasive imaging modality that can rapidly and accurately diagnose IK even for experienced corneal specialists. In complex cases of polymicrobial infection, IVCM may guide the correct clinical diagnosis and initiation of the appropriate treatment.
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.