ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Antifungal susceptibility profiles for fungal isolates from corneas and contact lenses in the United Kingdom.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidrug antifungal resistance and clinical outcomes in fungal keratitis: a prospective study in a South Indian population.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Trends in pathogens causing microbial keratitis in studies conducted in Mexico: a 38-year literature review.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Emerging Ocular Pathogen Resistance and Clinically Used Solutions: A Problem That Is More than Meets the Eye.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The IL-36γ/PEDF/PPARγ signalling pathway plays an anti-inflammatory role in Candida albicans keratitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Antifungal susceptibility, clinical findings, and biofilm resistance of Fusarium species causing keratitis: a challenge for disease control.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Antifungal susceptibility and clinical efficacy of chlorhexidine combined with topical ophthalmic medications againstFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo report the identification and results of susceptibility testing for fungal isolates from the cornea or contact lens care systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective epidemiological study, we searched the results of fungal cultures from cornea or contact lens systems referred for identification and susceptibility testing to the United Kingdom National Mycology Reference Laboratory between October 2016 and March 2022. For each fungal isolate, we recorded the genus and species of the fungus and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to six antifungal agents available to treat corneal infection (amphotericin, econazole, itraconazole, natamycin, posaconazole, and voriconazole).
resultsThere were 600 isolates from 585 patients, comprising 374 (62%) from corneal samples and 226 from contact lenses and care systems, of which 414 (69%) isolates were moulds (filamentous fungi) and 186 (31%) were yeasts. The most frequent moulds isolated were Fusarium spp (234 isolates, 39%) and Aspergillus spp (62, 10%). The most frequent yeasts isolated were Candida spp (112, 19%), predominantly Candida parapsilosis (65, 11%) and Candida albicans (33, 6%), with 35 isolates (6%) of Meyerozyma guilliermondii. In vitro susceptibility was greatest for natamycin (347 moulds tested, mode 4 mg/L, range 0.25-64 mg/L; 98 yeasts tested, mode 4 mg/L, range 0.5-32 mg/L), with susceptibility for 94% for moulds and 99% yeasts. Of the 16 isolates interpreted as highly resistant to natamycin (MIC ≥16 mg/L), 13 were Aspergillus flavus complex.
conclusionsIn vitro susceptibility supports the use of natamycin for the empiric treatment of fungal keratitis in the UK.
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.