Observational studyGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2020
Clinical and visual outcome of endophthalmitis patients: a single-center experience.
Observational study in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2020. 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.
- Observational
- Early Vitrectomy with Silicone Oil Tamponade in the Management of Postoperative Endophthalmitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Roles of CCL2 and CCL3 in intraocular inflammation during Bacillus endophthalmitis.Experimental eye research · 2022Article
- Endophthalmitis at a tertiary referral center: Characteristics and treatment outcomes over three decades.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in 314 Japanese Patients with Bacterial Endophthalmitis: A Multicenter Cohort Study from J-CREST.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Clinical analysis and predictive factors associated with improved visual acuity of infectious endophthalmitis.BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the clinical and visual outcome and the therapeutical management in a large cohort of endophthalmitis patients.
methodsIn a monocentric, observational study, we retrospectively analyzed the data of all patients with endophthalmitis who were referred to the department of ophthalmology of the Carl Gustav Carus Hospital Dresden between 2006 and 2018.
resultsIn total, data of 104 patients (49 female, 55 male) were included in the present analysis. The most frequent clinical scenario for endophthalmitis was postcataract surgery (30.8%). The most frequent treatment at presentation was a pars plana vitrectomy (ppV) in 42 patients, followed by an intravitreal antibiotic in 41 patients. Out of 41 patients who received an intravitreal antibiotic, 35 patients (85%) needed additional treatment. In contrast, out of 42 patients who received a ppV as the initial treatment, 19 patients (42%) needed additional therapy, which was significantly different (p < 0.0001). The best presenting visual acuity improved significantly after treatment (p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe results of the present study suggest that, compared with an intravitreal antibiotic, a ppV as the initial therapy of endophthalmitis might reduce the number of additional treatments. From our data, it can be hypothesized that a ppV should be performed as early as possible to achieve the best visual outcome in most endophthalmitis patients. Prospective studies are now needed to address this issue in greater detail and to confirm our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31637487What 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.