ArticleBMJ open2020
Topical chlorhexidine 0.2% versus topical natamycin 5% for fungal keratitis in Nepal: rationale and design of a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topical Chlorhexidine 0.2% versus Topical Natamycin 5% for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis in Nepal: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.Ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Randomised controlled trial of topical combination therapy chlorhexidine 0.2% and natamycin 5% versus topical natamycin 5% alone for fungal keratitis in East Africa: study protocol.Wellcome open research · 2025Article
- Physiochemical Characterization of Lipidic Nanoformulations Encapsulating the Antifungal Drug Natamycin.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Local Ugandan Production of Stable 0.2% Chlorhexidine Eye Drops.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Management of Filamentous Fungal Keratitis: A Pragmatic Approach.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Case for Fungal Keratitis to Be Accepted as a Neglected Tropical Disease.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diagnosis of Fungal Keratitis in Low-Income Countries: Evaluation of Smear Microscopy, Culture, and In Vivo Confocal Microscopy in Nepal.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Epidemiology and clinical outcomes of microbial keratitis in South East Nepal: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Microbial Keratitis in Nepal: Predicting the Microbial Aetiology from Clinical Features.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Delay in accessing definitive care for patients with microbial keratitis in Nepal.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Fungal keratitis caused by Pseudallescheria boydii: clinical and mycological characteristics.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2021Article
- Mycotic Keratitis-A Global Threat from the Filamentous Fungi.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Fungal keratitis: Mechanisms of infection and management strategies.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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFungal infections of the cornea, fungal keratitis (FK), are challenging to treat. Current topical antifungals are not always effective and are often unavailable, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries where most cases occur. Topical natamycin 5% is usually first-line treatment, however, even when treated intensively, infections may progress to perforation of the eye in around a quarter of cases. Alternative antifungal medications are needed to treat this blinding disease.Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic agent with antibacterial and antifungal properties. Previous pilot studies suggest that topical chlorhexidine 0.2% compares favourably with topical natamycin. Full-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical chlorhexidine 0.2% are warranted to answer this question definitively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will test the hypothesis that topical chlorhexidine 0.2% is non-inferior to topical natamycin 5% in a two-arm, single-masked RCT. Participants are adults with FK presenting to a tertiary ophthalmic hospital in Nepal. Baseline assessment includes history, examination, photography, in vivo confocal microscopy and cornea scrapes for microbiology. Participants will be randomised to alternative topical antifungal treatments (topical chlorhexidine 0.2% and topical natamycin 5%; 1:1 ratio, 2-6 random block size). Patients are reviewed at day 2, day 7 (with reculture), day 14, day 21, month 2 and month 3. The primary outcome is the best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 months. Primary analysis (intention to treat) will be by linear regression, with treatment arm and baseline BSCVA prespecified covariates. Secondary outcomes include epithelial healing time, scar/infiltrate size, ulcer depth, hypopyon size, perforation and/or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (corneal transplant), positive reculture rate (day 7) and quality of life (EuroQol-5 dimensions, WHO/PBD-VF20, WHOQOL-BREF). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Nepal Health Research Council, the Nepal Department of Drug Administration and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee have approved the trial. The results will be presented at local and international meetings and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14332621; pre-results.
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.