ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Revised Concept for Ocular Surface Imprinting: Easy-to-Use Device for Morphological and Biomolecular-Based Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Navigating the Challenges of Acanthamoeba Keratitis: Current Trends and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Retrospective analysis on the outcomes of contact lens-associated keratitis in a tertiary centre: an evidence-based management protocol to optimise resource allocation.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Microbial keratitis in Southern Malawi: a microbiological pilot study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Rapid Point-of-Care Identification of Aspergillus Species in Microbial Keratitis.JAMA ophthalmology · 2023Article
- FluoroPi Device With SmartProbes: A Frugal Point-of-Care System for Fluorescent Detection of Bacteria From a Pre-Clinical Model of Microbial Keratitis.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Big data in corneal diseases and cataract: Current applications and future directions.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
- Emerging diagnostic modalities in microbial keratitis: Beyond culture and smear.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare bacterial isolation rate using a corneal impression membrane (CIM) and a sharp instrument for obtaining corneal samples from patients with suspected microbial keratitis (MK). Data was retrospectively collected for all patients that had corneal samples taken for presumed MK between May 2014 and May 2020. Prior to May 2017 samples were collected by scraping the edges of the ulcer with a blade. From May 2017, samples were collected by placing a CIM (Millicell cell culture insert) against the ulcer. All corneal samples were processed using the same conventional diagnostic culture method. A total of 3099 corneal samples were included, of which 1214 (39.2%) were corneal scrapes and 1885 (60.9%) CIMs. Microorganisms were isolated from 235 (19.4%) and 1229 (65.2%) cases using a corneal scrape and CIM, respectively (
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.