Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35355117›Full record

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

Characterizing the microbiota of instrumentation in ophthalmology clinics during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heba Mahjoub, Sean X Zhang, Jiangxia Wang, Warda Memon, Heba Mostafa, Mark P Breazzano

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heba MahjoubWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0361-920X
Sean X ZhangDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1166-2563
Jiangxia WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1715-3981
Warda MemonMicrobiology Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Heba MostafaVirology Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mark P BreazzanoWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. mbreazzano@rvscny.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7093-965X
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · US

Funding

Wilmer Core Grant for Vision ResearchP30EY001765 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Ji Yi · 1985 to 2026
$22.1M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001765Wilmer Biostatistics Core Grant P30EY01765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIncreased ophthalmology-specific risk of novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is well-established, increasing the fear of infection and causing associated decreased rates of procedures known to save vision. However, the potential transmission from exposure to clinic instrumentation is unknown, including which additional pathogens may be spreading in this context. This study seeks to fill this gap by characterizing the microbiota of instrumentation in ophthalmology clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic and identifying potential sources of pathogenic spread encountered by patients and healthcare workers.

methodsThirty-three samples were captured using standard cultures and media. Ten positive and negative controls were used to confirm proper technique. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all samples. Samples were collected from the retina (N = 17), glaucoma (N = 6), cornea (N = 6), and resident (N = 4) clinics with rigorous disinfection standards at a tertiary academic medical center. Standard media cultures and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed for each sample.

resultsFrom 33 samples, more than half (17/33, 51.5%) yielded bacterial growth. Using two different molecular methods, three samples (3/33, 9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cycle thresholds 36.48, 37.14, and 37.83). There was no significant difference in bacterial growth (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: - 0.644-0.358, p = 0.076) among different clinics (retina, glaucoma, cornea, resident). Staphylococcus (S.) epidermidis grew most frequently (12/35, 34%), followed by S. capitis (7/35, 20%), Micrococcus luteus (2/35, 5.7%), Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum (2/35, 5.7%), and Cutibacterium ([C.], Propionibacterium) acnes (2/35, 5.7%). C. acnes growth was more frequent with imaging device forehead rests (2/7, 28.6%) than other surfaces (0/26, 0%, 95% CI: 0.019-0.619, p = 0.040). No samples isolated fungus or adenovirus.

conclusionsMost samples across subspecialty clinic instrumentation grew bacteria, and several tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Many isolated pathogens have been implicated in causing infections such as endophthalmitis, conjunctivitis, uveitis, and keratitis. The clinical implications of the ophthalmology microbiome for transmitting nosocomial infections warrant optimization of disinfection practices, strategies for mitigating spread, and additional study beyond the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19GlaucomaMicrobiotaOphthalmologyHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2BacteriaCOVID-19InstrumentationPathogensSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35355117
PMCPMC8967689
OpenAlexW4220743769

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.