ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2021
[Treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis : Operate or only inject?]
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of iontophoresis in ophthalmic practice: an innovative strategy to deliver drugs into the eye.Drug delivery · 2023Review
- Treatment outcomes of acute poptoperative infectious endophthalmitis.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Characteristics and Risk Factors for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Related to 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative endophthalmitis is among the most feared complications encountered after intraocular surgery. A prompt diagnosis and initiation of treatment are crucial for the visual prognosis, which also depends on the causative microorganism. Despite advances in prevention and the availability of more epidemiological data, most of the evidence for treatment dates back to a single study, the early vitrectomy study (EVS) carried out in the early 1990s. The EVS showed that vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotics was superior to intravitreal antibiotics alone, only when visual acuity was light perception or below. The addition of systemic antibiotics did not have any benefits. Over the last 30 years, however, surgical techniques have continued to evolve and the medicinal options have also been expanded. Moreover, the EVS examined only endophthalmitis after cataract surgery and strictly speaking the results cannot be transferred to endophthalmitis from other causes.
objectiveThis review discusses the current evidence for the different treatment modalities of the most important types of postoperative endophthalmitis.
conclusionThe EVS provided important guidelines for the initial management of endophthalmitis and these guidelines remain relevant to this day; however, in view of the refinement of surgical techniques, novel treatment options, especially the nowadays continuously growing number of intravitreal injections and even some new antibiotics, it would be desirable if new controlled trials addressing the treatment of endophthalmitis would be performed.
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.