ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Corneal foreign bodies: are antiseptics and antibiotics equally effective?
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of autologous serum in corneal healing following metallic foreign body injuries.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Trial
- The Rising Importance of Antiseptics in Ophthalmology: From Endophthalmitis Prevention to Treatment of Ocular Infections.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effect of antiseptics and antibiotics on the occurrence of Infectious Keratitis (IK) secondary to Corneal Foreign Body (CFB) removal.
methodsMulticenter retrospective study conducted between June 2020 and June 2022 in patients referred for CFBs and treated with Picloxydine (Group 1) or Tobramycin (Group 2) for 7 days. A follow-up visit was scheduled on Day 3 (D3) and a phone call on D30. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of IK.
results307 patients (300 men) with a mean age of 42.8 (14.8) years were included. The mean (SD) time to consultation was 43.1 (45.6) hours. Picloxydine and Tobramycin were given to 155 and 152 patients. Half of patients (n = 154, 50.2%) were building workers and 209 (68.1%) did not wear eye protections. CFBs were mainly metallic (n = 292, 95.1%). Upon referral, rust was found in 220 patients (72.1%). A burr was used in 119 (38.9%) patients. IK occurred in 15 (4.9%) patients, 8 (5.3%) in Group 1 and 7 (4.5%) in Group 2 (p = 0.797). IK was successfully treated in all cases. Persistent rust was found in 113 patients (36.9%) on D3 without difference between burr or needle use (p = 0.278). On D3, corneal healing was delayed in 154 patients (47.2%), mainly in burr-treated patients (p = 0.003). The mean (SD) work stoppage duration was 0.32 (0.98) days.
conclusionIK rate was 4.9%. The efficacy of antibiotics and antiseptics was similar on CFB removal. Using a burr was associated with a longer healing time. CFBs had a limited social impact.
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.