ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Clinical differentiation of
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renaissance of an Emerging Pathogen-Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Fungal Keratitis: Diagnosis, Management, and Recent Advances.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Breaking-Down Barriers: Proposal of Using Cellulose Biosynthesis Inhibitors and Cellulase Enzyme as a Novel Treatment Modality for Vision Threatening Pythium Insidiosum Keratitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Ring infiltrates inOman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To differentiate Pythium keratitis from fungal keratitis using clinical signs, to explore usefulness of various signs as diagnostic prognosticators, and develop a clinical scoring system. Methods: A retrospective review of medical records and archived clinical photographs of patients with culture-positive Pythium keratitis and hyaline filamentous fungal keratitis was conducted at a tertiary eye institute to explore characteristics of ulcers that may aid diagnosis. Results: Full-thickness corneal stromal keratitis (P = 0.055), a dry ulcer surface (P = 0.010), tentacles (P < 0.0001), intrastromal dots (P < 0.0001), ring infiltrates (P = 0.024), reticular patterns (P < 0.0001), and peripheral furrows (P < 0.0001) were clinical signs associated with Pythium keratitis. Multiple regression analysis identified tentacles (odds ratio: 24.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8-158.1, P = 0.001) and peripheral furrows (odds ratio: 60.6, 95% CI: 5.1-712.3, P = 0.001) as independent diagnostic prognosticators for Pythium keratitis. The positive and negative likelihood ratios of a dry ulcer surface, tentacles, intrastromal dots, ring infiltrates, reticular patterns, and peripheral furrows predicting Pythium keratitis were 1.6, 13.6, 17.9, 4.3, 30.7, 15.3 and 0.4, 0.4, 0.7, 0.9, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. The presence of two or more of these clinical signs (excluding a dry ulcer surface) had a sensitivity of 55.6% and a false positive rate of 1.4%. Conclusion: Tentacles, intrastromal dots, ring infiltrates, reticular patterns, and peripheral furrows are clinical signs to be considered for the diagnosis of Pythium keratitis and the presence of two or more signs has a very low false positive rate.
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.