ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Comparison of the effect of teicoplanin and vancomycin on experimental methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus keratitis.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Teicoplanin Versus Standard of Care Antibiotics for the Treatment of Gram-Positive Bacteremia: A Seven-Year Retrospective Analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Whole Genome Sequencing Highlights the Pathogenic Profile in Nocardia Keratitis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Role of intrastromal vancomycin in recalcitrant corneal abscess after phacoemulsification.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
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 evaluate the early efficacy and safety of intrastromal injection of teicoplanin as the alternative treatment for the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) keratitis by comparing it with vancomycin. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-four eyes of 24 New Zealand white rabbits were included in the study. MRSA keratitis was induced in the right eye of each rabbit by injecting 0.1 mL MRSA suspension containing 1000 colony-forming units (CFU) intrastromally to the central cornea. The rabbits were divided into three treatment groups 24 h after the inoculation of MRSA. Eight rabbits received intrastromal teicoplanin therapy, eight received intrastromal vancomycin therapy, and eight received balanced salt solution and served as the control group. Nine hours after the treatment, all rabbits were sacrificed and corneal tissues were collected for microbiological analysis. We also examined and scored all the rabbits clinically before and after the treatment.
resultsThe control group scored higher with regard to conjunctival injection, iritis, fibrin, hypopyon, epithelial erosion, and corneal infiltrate than the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups (p = 0.031, 0.010, < 0.001, 0.029, 0.009, and < 0.001, respectively). Chemosis and corneal oedema were similar in all groups (p = 0.731 and 0.075, respectively). The severity of all clinical parameters was similar in both the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups after the treatment. The bacterial load was the highest (7.83 ± 0.71 log
conclusionThe efficiency of teicoplanin seems to be comparable to that of vancomycin when administered intrastromally in the early treatment of MRSA keratitis. The former may be preferred in the treatment of selected cases with vancomycin hypersensitivity or resistance.
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.