Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35225510›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2022

Understanding the science of fungal endophthalmitis - AIOS 2021 Sengamedu Srinivas Badrinath Endowment Lecture.

Taraprasad Das, Joveeta Joseph, Saumya Jakati, Savitri Sharma, Thirumurthy Velpandian, Srikant K Padhy, Vipin A Das, Sisinthy Shivaji, Sameera Nayak, Umesh C Behera and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Safety and efficacy of echinocandin antifungal agents inAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Areas of uncertainty in endophthalmitis care.World journal of clinical cases · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Taraprasad DasSrimati Kanuri Shanthamma Center for Vitreoretinal Diseases, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Joveeta JosephJhaveri Microbiology Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Saumya JakatiPathology Laboratory, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Savitri SharmaJhaveri Microbiology Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Thirumurthy VelpandianOcular Pharmacology, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Srikant K PadhyRetina- Vitreous Service, Mithu Tulsi Chanrai Campus, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Vipin A DasIHOPE, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Sisinthy ShivajiJhaveri Microbiology Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Sameera NayakRetina- Vitreous Service, Kode Venkadadri Chaudhury Campus, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Umesh C BeheraRetina- Vitreous Service, Mithu Tulsi Chanrai Campus, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Dilip K MishraPathology Laboratory, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Jaishree GandhiJhaveri Microbiology Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Vivek P DaveSrimati Kanuri Shanthamma Center for Vitreoretinal Diseases, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Avinash PathengayRetina-Vitreous Service, GMR Varalakshmi Campus, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
L V Prasad Eye Institute · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INAndhra University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungal endophthalmitis is a potentially blinding condition. It is more often reported from Asia, including India. The incidence is lower than bacterial endophthalmitis. But it is relatively more challenging to treat than bacterial endophthalmitis. Many eyes may need therapeutic keratoplasty and/or evisceration. The current mainstays of treatment are vitrectomy irrespective of the presenting vision, intravitreal antifungal agents, and systemic therapy; additionally, the patients could require prolonged treatment with repeat vitreous surgeries and intravitreal injections. Difficulty in clinical diagnosis, delay in microbiological culture, and limited options of antifungal drugs make the treatment more difficult and less rewarding. Three common fungi causing endophthalmitis are Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Candida. The former two are molds, often identified in exogenous endophthalmitis, postoperative and traumatic; the latter is yeast and is more often identified in endogenous endophthalmitis. A faster diagnosis with newer molecular microbiological technologies might help institute treatment earlier than it is currently possible. A target trial using big data from different regions of the world might emulate a randomized clinical trial to design a definite treatment strategy. Given fewer antifungal drugs, one must be mindful of antifungal stewardship to prevent resistance to the existing drugs.

Indexed as

EndophthalmitisEye Infections, FungalFinancial ManagementAntifungal AgentsHumansRetrospective StudiesVisual AcuityVitrectomyAntifungal AgentsAntifungal stewardshipendophthalmitisfungusmicrobiologyminimum fungicidal concentrationoutcomepathologytreatment

Identifiers

PMID35225510
PMCPMC9114621
OpenAlexW4214549916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.