ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Comparison of culture, confocal microscopy and PCR in routine hospital use for microbial keratitis diagnosis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contact lens-associated infectious keratitis: microbiological profile, management, and hygiene behaviors in a tertiary eye hospital.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Rapid Pathogen Detection in Severe Infectious Keratitis: Prospective Evaluation of Combined Multiplex PCR Panels Versus Standard Microbiology.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Nested PCR as a superior diagnostic method for Acanthamoeba keratitis compared to conventional techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic comparison of microbial culture and polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis in a tertiary hospital, North West Ethiopia.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Successful Treatment of Acanthamoeba Keratitis According to New Protocol with Polihexanide 0.08% Therapy: Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- Microbiological profiles of infectious corneal ulcers in Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire-a 10-year analysis.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Acanthamoeba keratitis: from pathophysiology to prevention, a contemporary clinical perspective.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
- The pathogenesis, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of Acanthamoeba keratitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Risk Factors, Clinical Characteristics, and Antibiotic Susceptibility Patterns ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Oxford Nanopore Technology-Based Identification of anMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Review
- Use of in vivo confocal microscopy in suspected Acanthamoeba keratitis: a 12-year real-world data study at a Swedish regional referral center.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2024Article
- Artificial-Intelligence-Enhanced Analysis of In Vivo Confocal Microscopy in Corneal Diseases: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Fungal keratitis caused byFrontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Microbiological culture versus 16S/18S rRNA gene PCR-sanger sequencing for infectious keratitis: a three-arm, diagnostic cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Differentiation of acanthamoeba keratitis from other non-acanthamoeba keratitis: Risk factors and clinical features.PloS one · 2024Article
- New Frontiers inBiology · 2023Review
- False positive microbiological results in Acanthamoeba keratitis: the importance of clinico-microbiological correlation.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Analysis of microbial keratitis incidence, isolates and in-vitro antimicrobial susceptibility in the East of England: a 6-year study.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Diagnosis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and culture for microbial keratitis (MK) diagnosis.
methodsRetrospective review of PCR, IVCM and culture results for MK diagnosis at Moorfields Eye Hospital between August 2013 and December 2014.
resultsPCR results were available for 259 MK patients with concurrent culture for 203/259 and IVCM for 149/259. Sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] were calculated for Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) and fungal keratitis (FK), by comparison with culture, for both IVCM and PCR. For AK, FK and bacterial keratitis (BK) sensitivities were calculated, for each diagnostic method, by comparison with a composite reference standard (a positive result for one or more of culture, PCR or IVCM having a specificity of 100% by definition). For the latter, sensitivities with [95% CI] were: for AK, IVCM 77.1% [62.7-88.0%], PCR 63.3% [48.3-76.6%], culture 35.6 [21.9-51.2]; for FK, IVCM 81.8% [48.2-97.7%], PCR 30.8% [9.09-61.4%], culture 41.7% [15.2-72.3%]; for BK, PCR 25.0% [14.7-37.9%], culture 95.6% [87.6-99.1%].
conclusionIVCM was the most sensitive technique for AK and FK diagnosis but culture remains our gold standard for BK. These findings reflect results to be expected from service providers to UK ophthalmology units and demonstrates the need at our centre for ongoing diagnostic result audit leading to the potential to improve PCR diagnosis. Both FK and AK are now common in the UK; ophthalmology units need to have all these techniques available to optimise their MK management.
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.