Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33593443›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2021

Surveillance of post-cataract endophthalmitis at a tertiary referral center: a 10-year critical evaluation.

Juliana Mika Kato, Tatiana Tanaka, Luiza Manhezi Shin de Oliveira, Maura Salaroli de Oliveira, Flavia Rossi, Mauro Goldbaum, Sergio Luis Gianotti Pimentel, João Nóbrega de Almeida Junior, Joyce Hisae Yamamoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. From colonizer to culprit: genomic and clinical insights into S. epidermidis from post-surgical endophthalmitis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Juliana Mika KatoDepartment of Ophthalmology-LIM33, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, 255 Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, São Paulo, Brazil. juliana.kato@hc.fm.usp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1815-4644
Tatiana TanakaDepartment of Ophthalmology-LIM33, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, 255 Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luiza Manhezi Shin de OliveiraDepartment of Ophthalmology-LIM33, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, 255 Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maura Salaroli de OliveiraDivision of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Flavia RossiCentral Laboratory Division-LIM03, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mauro GoldbaumDepartment of Ophthalmology-LIM33, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, 255 Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sergio Luis Gianotti PimentelDepartment of Ophthalmology-LIM33, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, 255 Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, São Paulo, Brazil.
João Nóbrega de Almeida JuniorCentral Laboratory Division-LIM03, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Joyce Hisae YamamotoDepartment of Ophthalmology-LIM33, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, 255 Av. Dr. Enéas Carvalho de Aguiar, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute post-cataract endophthalmitis (APE) is a rare complication potentially causing irreversible visual loss. A 10-year study of APE was conducted to determine its incidence, microbiological spectra and antibiotic resistance profile of APE-related pathogens at a major tertiary referral center in Brazil.

methodsAPE cases reported between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract techniques were eligible; combined procedures, traumatic and congenital cataract were excluded. Vitreous samples were cultured and antimicrobial resistance was compared for the periods of 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. The results were analyzed with Fisher's exact test.

resultsOur sample consisted of 40,491 cataract surgeries and 51 (0.126%) APE cases. Culture was positive in 35 cases (71.4%), of which 31 (88.6%) Gram-positive, 3 (8.6%) Gram-negative, and 1 (2.9%) fungal. The most frequently isolated organism was Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 17/35, 48.6%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (n = 4/35, 11.4%). From 2010-2014 to 2015-2019, antimicrobial resistance increased against moxifloxacin (11.1-54.5%, p = 0.07), ciprofloxacin (54.5-72.7%, p = 0.659) and oxacillin (66.7-93.3%, p = 0.13).

conclusionsThe observed incidence and microbial spectra were compatible with previous studies. A trend towards growing moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin resistance was observed. Surveillance remains crucial to prevent treatment failure from antimicrobial resistance.

Indexed as

Antibiotic resistanceCataract surgeryEndophthalmitis

Identifiers

PMID33593443
PMCPMC7885210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.