Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35278125›Full record

ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022

Preventive factors, diagnosis, and management of injection-related endophthalmitis: a literature review.

Rupali Singh, Samaneh Davoudi, Steven Ness

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Areas of uncertainty in endophthalmitis care.World journal of clinical cases · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Drug Distribution After Intravitreal Injection: A Mathematical Model.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  10. Endophthalmitis: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis from 1993 to 2023.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rupali Singh, Boston, USA.
Samaneh DavoudiBoston Medical Center, 85 East Concord Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Steven NessBoston Medical Center, 85 East Concord Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. Steven.Ness@bmc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5843-9476
Boston Medical Center · USBoston University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravitreal medication injections represent the gold standard treatment for a variety of potentially blinding chorioretinal vascular diseases. Despite their excellent safety profile, they are associated with the feared complication of injection-related endophthalmitis (IRE). Though the overall incidence of IRE is low, due to the ever-increasing number of injections being performed, it is a complication that all retina specialists are likely to encounter. This article reviews various factors that could potentially influence the risk of IRE and discusses evidence-based strategies for management.

methodPubMed was searched for keywords "intravitreal injection" and "endophthalmitis" from the period of 1995-2021. Relevant articles were reviewed and selected articles were analyzed with respect to the incidence, potential preventive factors, clinical presentation, microbial profile, management, and outcomes for IRE.

resultsThere is strong consensus supporting the use of povidone iodine topical antiseptic, eyelid retraction away from the injection site, and avoiding treatment of eyes with active surface or eyelid disease, but there is less agreement on the use of face masks versus "no-talking" policies and optimal anesthetic technique. Current evidence comparing tap and inject or early vitrectomy for treatment of IRE is inadequate to determine an optimal treatment strategy.

conclusionIntravitreal injections are sight saving, but even using established prophylactic measures there remains a small but real risk of infectious injection-related complications. Further investigations comparing tap and inject versus vitrectomy may help to establish optimal treatment, although the rarity of IRE makes designing adequately powered prospective trials a difficult task.

Indexed as

EndophthalmitisEye Infections, BacterialAngiogenesis InhibitorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansIncidenceIntravitreal InjectionsProspective StudiesRanibizumabRetrospective StudiesVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsRanibizumabVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAntivascular endothelial growth factorCorticosteroidsInjection-related endophthalmitisIntravitreal injection

Identifiers

PMID35278125
PMCPMC8917335
OpenAlexW4220938182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.