Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31619359›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmology2020

Cross-Linking-Assisted Infection Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effect of Adjuvant Cross-Linking on Outcomes in Fungal Keratitis.

N Venkatesh Prajna, Naveen Radhakrishnan, Prajna Lalitha, Ariana Austin, Kathryn J Ray, Jeremy D Keenan, Travis C Porco, Thomas M Lietman, Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Adjunctive povidone-iodine forAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Article
  8. Rose Bengal-Assisted Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy for Keratitis.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2025
    Article
  9. Infectious Keratitis Management: 10-Year Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  10. Antifungal susceptibility, clinical findings, and biofilm resistance of Fusarium species causing keratitis: a challenge for disease control.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Fungal Keratitis: Diagnosis, Management, and Recent Advances.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

N Venkatesh PrajnaAravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India.
Naveen RadhakrishnanAravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India.
Prajna LalithaAravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India.
Ariana AustinFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Kathryn J RayFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Jeremy D KeenanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; UCSF Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Travis C PorcoFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; UCSF Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Thomas M LietmanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; UCSF Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; UCSF Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Jennifer Rose-NussbaumerFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; UCSF Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; The Permanente Medical Group, Redwood City, California. Electronic address: jennifer.rose.nussbaumer@gmail.com.
University of California, San Francisco · USAravind Eye Hospital · IN

Funding

Predictions of Response to Treatment in Fungal KeratitisK23EY025025 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROSE-NUSSBAUMER, JENNIFER · 2015 to 2019
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY025025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine if there is a benefit to adjuvant corneal crosslinking (CXL) and to compare natamycin versus amphotericin B for filamentous fungal keratitis.

designOutcome-masked, 2×2 factorial design, randomized controlled clinical trial.

participantsConsecutive patients presenting with moderate vision loss from a smear-positive fungal ulcer at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India.

methodsStudy eyes were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment combinations using an adaptive randomization protocol. The treatment arms included (1) topical natamycin 5% alone, (2) topical natamycin 5% plus CXL, (3) topical amphotericin B 0.15% alone, and (4) topical amphotericin 0.15% plus CXL.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome of the trial was microbiological cure at 24 hours on repeat culture. Secondary outcomes included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 weeks and 3 months, percentage of study participants with epithelial healing at 3 days, 3 weeks, and 3 months, infiltrate or scar size at 3 weeks and 3 months, 3-day smear and culture, and adverse events.

resultsThose randomized to CXL regardless of medication (topical natamycin or amphotericin) had 1.32-fold increased odds of 24-hour culture positivity, although this was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-3.06; P = 0.51). We were also unable to find a difference in 24-hour culture positivity between those randomized to amphotericin and those randomized to natamycin when evaluating as a group regardless of whether or not they received CXL (coefficient 1.10; 95% CI, 0.47-2.54; P = 0.84). The BSCVA was approximately 0.22 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (2.2 Snellen lines) worse on average at 3 weeks among those receiving CXL regardless of medication (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.40; P = 0.04) and 0.32 logMAR (3.2 Snellen lines) worse visual acuity at 3 months after controlling for baseline visual acuity (95% CI, 0.03-0.54; P = 0.02). There was no difference in infiltrate or scar size, percentage of epithelialized or adverse events when comparing CXL with no CXL or the 2 topical medications.

conclusionsThere appears to be no benefit of adjuvant CXL in the primary treatment of moderate filamentous fungal ulcers, and it may result in decreased visual acuity.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAdultAgedAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsCross-Linking ReagentsEye Infections, FungalFemaleHumansKeratitisMaleMiddle AgedNatamycinRiboflavinUltraviolet RaysVisual AcuityAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsCross-Linking ReagentsNatamycinRiboflavin

Identifiers

PMID31619359
PMCPMC6982573
OpenAlexW2985963434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.