Comment on: Sensitivity and specificity of potassium hydroxide and calcofluor white stain to differentiate between fungal and

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Renaissance of an Emerging Pathogen-Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025
   Article
2. Understanding barriers, recommended solutions, and future prospects for the diagnosis and management of Pythium insidiosum keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to comment on: Sensitivity and specificity of potassium hydroxide and calcofluor white stain to differentiate between fungal and2022
• Comment on
  Sensitivity and specificity of potassium hydroxide and calcofluor white stain to differentiate between fungal and2022

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as