ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comparison of Microbial Sampling Sites and Donor-Related Factors on Corneal Graft Contamination.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small excretory-secretory proteins of Acanthamoeba castellanii genotype T4 upregulate the expression of capsule-associated genes via the Rcs two-component system in Klebsiella pneumoniae.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Development of an Ex Vivo Porcine Eye Model for Exploring the Pathogenicity ofMicroorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Grafts used for corneal donation should be sterile to avoid transplantation failure and secondary infection. However, there are no clear and globally accepted specifications from eye banks on microbial sampling sites. The objective of this study was to analyze microbial contamination of corneal grafts collected from different sampling sites. We found that the contamination rates and strain compositions significantly differed at different sampling sites. To clarify the effect of the microbial sampling site on corneal graft contamination, microbial sampling was conducted using 30 corneal grafts at the extraocular and intraocular sides of the graft in 2020 from the National Eye Bank of Taiwan. Microbial contamination significantly differed (p < 0.05) between the different sampling sites on the graft according to McNemar’s test. Although the two sampling sites showed the same specificity (33.33%), the sensitivity of sampling on the extraocular side (82.35%) was higher than that on the intraocular side (17.65%) of the graft. Donor-associated factors, including the cause of death, operating place, and cold compression, were analyzed using chi-square statistics, which revealed no significant differences in microbial contamination. Thus, our data provide evidence for the microbial sampling site of donated grafts and clear specifications for maintaining the quality of corneal grafts.
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.