Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32587199›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020

Anahita Kate, Joveeta Joseph, Bhupesh Bagga

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Microorganisms · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anahita KateThe Cornea and Institute, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Joveeta JosephJhaveri Microbiology Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Bhupesh BaggaThe Cornea and Institute, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
L V Prasad Eye Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A 21-year-old boy underwent deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) for advanced keratoconus. Postoperatively, slit lamp examination revealed multiple foci of interface infiltrates. Medical therapy was non-responsive, and therefore, a repeat lamellar transplantation was done. Scrapings were taken from host stroma and under the surface of the initial graft. Microbiological examination, aided by VITEK-2, revealed the causative organism as Kocuria kristinae. The postoperative course was uneventful and at a 1-year follow-up, the graft was clear with no recurrence of infection. This case highlights the pathogenic potential of Kocuria species, which has previously been disregarded as a commensal or contaminant.

Indexed as

Corneal TransplantationKeratitisKeratoconusMicrococcaceaeAdultHumansKeratoplasty, PenetratingMaleYoung AdultInterface keratitisKocuria kristinaeVITEK-2

Identifiers

PMID32587199
PMCPMC7574134
OpenAlexW3037945195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.