ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2020
A 14-Year Retrospective Analysis of Endogenous Endophthalmitis in a Tertiary Referral Center of Southern Thailand.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endogenous endophthalmitis: a nine-year retrospective study of 33 patients.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Metastatic endophthalmitis presenting as subretinal abscess following a forearm furuncle.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Clinical Course of Endogenous Endophthalmitis.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate patient characteristics, clinical features, common causative organisms, and visual acuity outcomes in endogenous endophthalmitis.
methodsThis was a retrospective chart analysis of patients with endogenous endophthalmitis between January 2006 and December 2019. Collected data included basic patient characteristics, presenting symptoms, causative organisms, treatments, and 3-month and 1-year visual outcomes.
resultsTwenty-nine eyes of 27 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 45.4 ± 19.9 years, and 63% were female. Visual acuity at presentation ranged from counting fingers to no light perception. Systemic comorbidities presented in 66.7% of the patients, the majority of which were related to diabetes mellitus (48.1%). The most common primary infection was a urinary tract infection. Positive blood cultures were identified in 48.1% of patients, and positive cultures from vitreous and aqueous samples were identified in 59.3% and 31.6% of eyes, respectively. Among all the specimens, Gram-positive bacteria were identified in 55.5%, Gram-negative bacteria in 22.2%, fungi in 14.8%, and mixed organisms in 7.4%. Among ocular specimens, 61.1% contained Gram-positive organisms, 16.7% contained Gram-negative organisms, and 22.2% contained fungi.
conclusionEyes with positive vitreous cultures had significantly poorer visual outcomes. Despite full treatment coverage, visual prognosis was extremely poor and the rates of blindness and evisceration/enucleation were still high.
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.