ArticleEye (London, England)2021
Post-injection endophthalmitis rates with reduced povidone-iodine prophylaxis in patients with self-reported iodine sensitivity.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- In praise of povidone-iodine application in ophthalmology.Survey of ophthalmologyReview
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur objectives were (1) to report the post-injection endophthalmitis rate over 18 months, and (2) to determine any difference in the incidence of endophthalmitis in patients treated with reduced or no 5% povidone-iodine (PI) due to self-reported PI sensitivity.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who received intravitreal injections (IVIs) from January 1st, 2018 to June 26th, 2019. Information on patients' age, gender visual acuities, the number of injections, drug administered, self-reported iodine sensitivity and injection protocols were obtained from electronic and paper records. For endophthalmitis cases, vitreous culture results and treatment were also noted. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on the injection protocol used for statistical analysis.
resultsDuring the study period 22,046 IVIs were administered to 3332 eyes of 2709 patients. Intolerance to PI was reported by 2.4% of patients. The incidence of endophthalmitis was 0.02% (4/21,185) with the standard 5% PI protocol, 0.78% (6/769) with a reduced PI protocol involving fewer drops of 5% PI and chlorohexidine 0.05% for periorbital skin cleansing, and 1.09% (1/92) without any PI use. Receiving the standard PI protocol was associated with significantly lower rates of endophthalmitis compared to both the reduced PI and no PI protocols (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsPatients who opt for less or no PI use are likely at significantly increased risk of developing post-IVI endophthalmitis. It is imperative to educate, counsel and consent these patients accordingly while exploring alternative antiseptic solutions.
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.