ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2020
Does the sampling instrument influence corneal culture outcome in patients with infectious keratitis? A retrospective study comparing cotton tipped applicator with knife blade.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathogenesis and treatment strategies for infectious keratitis: Exploring antibiotics, antimicrobial peptides, nanotechnology, and emerging therapies.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- Navigating the Challenges of Acanthamoeba Keratitis: Current Trends and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Understanding Acanthamoeba Keratitis: An In-Depth Review of a Sight-Threatening Eye Infection.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Diagnosis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Role of Topical Povidone-Iodine in the Management of Infectious Keratitis: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic armamentarium of infectious keratitis: A comprehensive review.The ocular surface · 2022Review
- An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Corneal Culture in Infectious Keratitis: Effect of the Inoculation Method and Media on the Corneal Culture Outcome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of a cotton tipped applicator and a knife blade in obtaining corneal samples in patients with infectious keratitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with suspected infectious keratitis during 2004-2014. Samples for corneal culture were obtained by a cotton tipped applicator and a knife blade, and directly inoculated on GC agar, blood agar and Sabouraud agar.
resultsIn all, 355 patients were included. Corneal sampling by cotton tipped applicator yielded a significantly higher rate of patients with positive corneal culture, 156/355 (43.9%), compared with knife blade, 111/355 (31.3%) (p<0.001). On a patient level, the culture results obtained by the cotton tipped applicator and the knife blade were identical in 269/355 (76%) of the patients. The overall agreement between the two instruments on microbial level was 0.66 (Cohen's kappa 95% CI 0.60 to 0.72).
conclusionCorneal sampling by cotton tipped applicator generated a higher rate of positive corneal cultures and a higher proportion of isolated microbes than by knife blade. Future studies with randomised sampling order are needed to establish which instrument, cotton tipped applicator or knife blade, is the most effective in sampling microbes for direct inoculation in patients with infectious keratitis.
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.