ArticleActa ophthalmologica2022
Validation of a multi-species-specific PCR panel to diagnose patients with suspected postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of Ceftazidime in the Vitreous Humor Using Ultra-performance Convergence Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry.Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2026Article
- The diagnosis and treatment progress of infectious endophthalmitis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Primary vitrectomy or intravitreal antibiotics followed by early vitrectomy for acute endophthalmitis: A prospective observational study.Acta ophthalmologica · 2023Observational
- Update on Current Microbiological Techniques for Pathogen Identification in Infectious Endophthalmitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- A Review on Pathogens and Necessary Diagnostic Work for Bleb-Related Infections (BRIs).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCurrently, patients suspected of endophthalmitis are referred to a tertiary centre for a vitreous biopsy and bacterial culture, thereby causing a treatment delay for the intravitreal antibiotics injection. We developed a new diagnostic tool, multi-mono-PCR (mm-PCR), not requiring viable bacteria, allowing antibiotic injection without delay. Performance of mm-PCR was tested on biopsies from patients with suspected postoperative endophthalmitis with known bacterial culture results.
methodsMost frequently occurring pathogens in endophthalmitis were determined using published data and treatment logs of endophthalmitis patient of the Rotterdam Eye Hospital. Vitreous biopsies from patients with suspected endophthalmitis were aliquoted in two parts. One part was sent out for bacterial culture and another was stored at -80°C for mm-PCR analysis and, as a backup, also by panbacterial PCR. Twelve vitreous samples from patients not suspected of having endophthalmitis were added as control samples.
resultsConcordancy between bacterial culture and mm-PCR was 89% (24 of 27). All twelve control samples were negative. In three nonconcordant samples, the PCR results were most likely the correct ones.
conclusionmm-PCR results are highly concordant with bacterial culture. mm-PCR with panbacterial PCR as backup could be considered a diagnostic tool in patients with endophthalmitis, which would allow us to reverse the order of diagnosis and treatment while maintaining diagnostic surveillance, thereby preventing treatment delay.
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.