Trial reportGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2023
Topical antibiotic prophylaxis before intravitreal injections: a pilot study.
Trial report in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central Retinal Vein Occlusion in the Absence of Conventional Risk Factors Associated With Breast Carcinoma: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Systemic and ocular complications related to intravitreal administration of anti-VEGF agents.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore whether topical antibiotic prophylaxis in patients scheduled for intravitreal injections achieves surface sterility in a greater proportion of subjects as compared to povidone-iodine alone. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized, triple-blind clinical trial. POPULATION: patients scheduled for intravitreal injections for maculopathy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: any sex and race, age 18 years and above. Subjects were randomized into 4 groups: the first group applied chloramphenicol (CHLORAM), the second netilmicin (NETILM), the third a commercial ozonized antiseptic solution (OZONE), and the fourth applied no drops (CONTROL). OUTCOME VARIABLE: percentage of non-sterile conjunctival swabs. Specimens were collected before and after the application of 5% povidone-iodine moments before the injection.
resultsNinety-eight subjects (33.7% females, 64.3% males), mean age: 70.2 ± 9.3 years (54-91). Before povidone-iodine, both the CHLORAM and NETILM group showed a lower percentage of non-sterile swabs (61.1% and 31.3% respectively), as compared to the OZONE (83.3%) and CONTROL (86.5%) groups (p < .04). However, this statistical difference was lost after the application of povidone-iodine for 3 min. Percentage of non-sterile swabs in each group after applying 5% povidone-iodine: CHLORAM 11.1%, NETILM 12.5%, CONTROL 15.4%, OZONE 25.0%. This was not statistically significant (p > .05).
conclusionsTopical antibiotic prophylaxis with chloramphenicol or netilmicin drops decreases the bacterial load on the conjunctiva. However, after the application of povidone-iodine, all groups showed a significant reduction in the percentage of non-sterile swabs, and this value was comparable among all groups. For this reason, authors conclude that povidone-iodine alone is sufficient and prior topical antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated.
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.