ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Managing Corneal Infections: Out with the old, in with the new?
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Antimicrobial Effect of Ultraviolet C (UV-C) Light Compared to Standard Povidone-Iodine Protocol for Preoperative Disinfection of the Periocular Area.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial Activity of Ultraviolet C Light as a Potential Novel Treatment for Moraxella bovis Infection-An In Vitro Study.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Ultraviolet C (UV-C) Light Therapy Inhibits Pathogens Associated With Equine Keratomycosis at Different Corneal Depths-An Ex Vivo Study.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Novel treatment of infectious keratitis in canine corneas using ultraviolet C (UV-C) light.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There have been multiple reports of eye infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, with increasing evidence of ineffective treatment outcomes from existing therapies. With respect to corneal infections, the most commonly used antibiotics (fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, and cephalosporines) are demonstrating reduced efficacy against bacterial keratitis isolates. While traditional methods are losing efficacy, several novel technologies are under investigation, including light-based anti-infective technology with or without chemical substrates, phage therapy, and probiotics. Many of these methods show non-selective antimicrobial activity with potential development as broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents. Multiple preclinical studies and a limited number of clinical case studies have confirmed the efficacy of some of these novel methods. However, given the rapid evolution of corneal infections, their treatment requires rapid institution to limit the impact on vision and prevent complications such as scarring and corneal perforation. Given their rapid effects on microbial viability, light-based technologies seem particularly promising in this regard.
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.