ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
Treatment of Corneal Infections Utilizing an Ocular Wound Chamber.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Prospective, Controlled, Randomised, Clinical Study of Negative Pressure Device Without Foam or Gauze for Skin and Soft Tissue Defects.International wound journal · 2025Trial
- Topical Drug Delivery in the Treatment of Skin Wounds and Ocular Trauma Using the Platform Wound Device.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- The Need for Improved Therapeutic Approaches to Protect the Cornea Against Chemotoxic Injuries.Translational vision science & technology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To demonstrate that the ocular wound chamber (OWC) can be used for the treatment of bacterial keratitis (BK). Methods: A blepharotomy was performed on anesthetized, hairless guinea pigs to induce exposure keratopathy 72 hours before corneal wound creation and Results: White light, fluorescein, and SD-OCT imaging suggests OWC-treated eyes are qualitatively healthier than those in DROPS or NT groups. At 24 hours, the median number of CFUs (interquartile range) measured was 0 (0-8750), 150,000 (106,750-181,250), and 8750 (2525-16,000) CFU/mL for OWC, NT, and DROPS, respectively. While 100% of NT and DROPS animals remained infected at 24 hours, only 25% of OWC-treated animals showed infection. Skin samples at 24 hours showed infection percentages of 50%, 75%, and 0% in DROPS, NT, and OWC groups, respectively. OWC-treated animals had higher moxifloxacin plasma concentrations at 24 and 72 hours than those treated with drops. Conclusions: OWC use resulted in a more rapid decrease of CFUs when compared to DROPS or NT groups and was associated with qualitatively healthier ocular and periocular tissue. Translational Relevance: The OWC could be used clinically to continuously and rapidly deliver antimicrobials to infected ocular and periocular tissues, effectively lowering bacterial bioburdens and mitigating long-term complications.
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.