ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
An analysis of the use of antimicrobial agents in outdoor patients of ophthalmology.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular infections and stewardship practices for Ophthalmologists: The RED EYE AMSP model.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Emerging antimicrobial resistance and need for antimicrobial stewardship for ocular infections in India: A narrative review.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study was aimed to analyze commonly used antimicrobials in outdoor patients of ophthalmology department. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was an observational, cross-sectional study carried out in the Department of Pharmacology and Ophthalmology after approval from the head of departments and Institutional Ethics Committee. All the patients age 18 years and above who were prescribed antimicrobials and gave consent were included in study. Data were recorded in a case study form containing relevant patient information and results of general, ocular, and special examinations along with the details of antimicrobials prescribed. Data were analyzed according to the World Health Organization/International Network for Rational Use of Drugs indicators and appropriate statistical tests.
resultsA total of 900 patients who were prescribed antimicrobial agents (AMAs) were included in the study. The most common chief complaint was diminution of vision (25.78%). The most common indication of use of AMAs was for treating ocular infections (50.22%). The most commonly prescribed antimicrobial group was fluoroquinolone (FQ) (63.8%) and the most common drug was moxifloxacin (35.95%). The most common dosage form of AMAs was eye drops (68.55%). The average number of drugs per encounter was 4.41. The percentage of encounters with injectables prescribed was 0.67%. The percentage of use of antibiotics was 100%. The percentage of total drugs and AMAs prescribed by generic name was 41.5 and 11.92, respectively. The percentage of antimicrobial drugs prescribed from essential drugs list was 34.24%. The mean duration of antimicrobial therapy was 7.2 ± 4.54 days.
conclusionMore than half of the patients are prescribed multiple AMAs. Moxifloxacin, a newer generation FQ , was the most commonly prescribed AMA in our study. Educational interventions and strict adherence to hospital antimicrobial use policy are needed to restrict the use of AMAs and increase rational prescribing.
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.