Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36258003›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2022

Prophylactic antibiotics for postcataract surgery endophthalmitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 6.8 million eyes.

Ai Kato, Nobuyuki Horita, Ho Namkoong, Eiichi Nomura, Nami Masuhara, Takeshi Kaneko, Nobuhisa Mizuki, Masaki Takeuchi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ai KatoDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Japan.
Nobuyuki HoritaChemotherapy Center, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Ho NamkoongDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Keio University School of Medicine, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan.
Eiichi NomuraDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Japan.
Nami MasuharaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chigasaki Municipal Hospital, Chigasaki, Kanagawa, Japan.
Takeshi KanekoDepartment of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Nobuhisa MizukiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Japan.
Masaki TakeuchiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Japan. takeuchi@yokohama-cu.ac.jp.
Yokohama City University · JPChigasaki Rehabilitation College · JPKeio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To reveal optimal antibiotic prophylactic regimen for postoperative endophthalmitis (POE), we conducted systematic review and network meta-analysis. A total of 51 eligible original articles, including two randomized controlled trials, were identified. In total, 4502 POE cases occurred in 6,809,732 eyes (0.066%). Intracameral injection of vancomycin had the best preventive effect (odds ratio [OR] 0.03, 99.6% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.53, corrected P-value = 0.006, P-score = 0.945) followed by intracameral injection of cefazoline (OR 0.09, 99.6% CI 0.02-0.42, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.821), cefuroxime (OR 0.18, 99.6% CI 0.09-0.35, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.660), and moxifloxacin (OR 0.36, 99.6% CI 0.16-0.79, corrected P-value = 0.003, P-score = 0.455). While one randomized controlled trial supported each of intracameral cefuroxime and moxifloxacin, no randomized controlled trial evaluated vancomycin and cefazoline. Sensitivity analysis focusing on the administration route revealed that only intracameral injection (OR 0.19, 99.4% CI 0.12-0.30, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.726) significantly decreased the risk of postoperative endophthalmitis. In conclusion, intracameral injection of either vancomycin, cefazoline, cefuroxime, or moxifloxacin prevented POE.

Indexed as

Cataract ExtractionEndophthalmitisAnterior ChamberAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisCefuroximeHumansMoxifloxacinPostoperative ComplicationsVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefuroximeMoxifloxacinVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID36258003
PMCPMC9579149
OpenAlexW4306748221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.