ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2022
Clinical and Mycological Features of Fungal Keratitis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study (2012-2018)
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Mycovirus Reprograms the Pathogenic State of Aspergillus flavus in Keratitis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Infectious Keratitis: A Retrospective Analysis of a Tertiary Care Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Pediatric Fungal Keratitis: Predisposing Factors, Clinical Features, and Outcomes During a 24-Year Study.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Fluconazole-loaded Hyaluronic Acid-modified Transfersomal Hydrogels Containing D-panthenol for Ocular Delivery in Fungal Keratitis Management.Current drug delivery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- An artificial intelligence approach to classify pathogenic fungal genera of fungal keratitis using corneal confocal microscopy images.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To present the demographic, etiological, clinical, and mycological characteristics and treatment results of fungal keratitis patients admitted to our clinic. Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients diagnosed with fungal keratitis between October 2012 and 2018 were reviewed. The diagnosis of fungal keratitis was confirmed mycologically and/or cytologically. Treatment response was defined as complete infiltrate resolution and re-epithelization with medical treatment and minor surgical interventions. Patients who underwent penetrating keratoplasty or evisceration due to clinical deterioration despite treatment were classified as treatment nonresponders and were compared with responders in terms of demographic, etiological, and clinical characteristics. Results: Seventy-two (12.8%) of 559 patients diagnosed with microbial keratitis in the 6-year period were fungal keratitis. Of these, 38 cases (38 eyes) without polymicrobial etiology were included in the study. The patients' mean age was 44.9±19.0 years (range: 2-80) and males predominated (14 females [36.8%], 24 males [63.2%]). Trauma (63.6%) was the most common predisposing factor in patients younger than 40 years old, whereas pathologies impairing ocular surface immunity were the leading risk factor (48.1%) in patients older than 40 years. Filamentous fungi were detected in 34 (89.5%) cases, while yeasts were found in 4 (10.5%) cases. Among 26 cases with positive cultures, Conclusion: Fungal keratitis is an important public health problem in our region. Ocular trauma is a leading etiology in men under the age of 40 years. In the 6-year period, we observed that the main causes of fungal keratitis were filamentous fungi, and most commonly
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.