Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38319381›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Antibiotic susceptibility in Endophthalmitis Management Study and intravitreal antibiotic practice trend in India-EMS Report #5.

Taraprasad Das, Suchita Pandey, Joveeta Joseph, Jay Sheth, Akash Belenje, Umesh C Behera, Aditya Kapoor, Rudvij Pandya, Vivek Pravin Dave

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Taraprasad DasAnant Bajaj Retina Institute, Srimati Kanuri Santhamma Centre for Vitreoretinal Disease, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India. tpd@lvpei.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1295-4528
Suchita PandeyJhaveri Microbiology Center, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6807-2121
Joveeta JosephJhaveri Microbiology Center, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8421-1977
Jay ShethRetina Service, Shantilal Shanghvi Eye Institute, Mumbai, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3590-7759
Akash BelenjeAnant Bajaj Retina Institute, Srimati Kanuri Santhamma Centre for Vitreoretinal Disease, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4465-4765
Umesh C BeheraAnant Bajaj Retina Institute, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Bhubaneswar, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6812-1894
Aditya KapoorAnant Bajaj Retina Institute, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Vijayawada, India.
Rudvij PandyaAnant Bajaj Retina Institute, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Vishakhapatnam, India.
Vivek Pravin DaveAnant Bajaj Retina Institute, Srimati Kanuri Santhamma Centre for Vitreoretinal Disease, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2589-666X

Funding

Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation (LEC-01-19-215)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimAnalyze antibiotic susceptibility in the Endophthalmitis Management Study (EMS) and compare it with the current intravitreal antibiotic practice trend of members of the Vitreoretinal Society of India (VRSI) practicing in India.

methodsThe microbiology work-up of undiluted vitreous included microscopy, culture-susceptibility, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and next-generation sequencing (NGS). VRSI members were invited to the survey. The EMS conventional culture-susceptibility (PCR and NGS excluded) results were compared vis-a-vis gram-positive cocci (GPC), gram-negative bacilli (GNB), and less commonly used antibiotics with the current recommended intravitreal antibiotics. p < 0.05 was considered significant.

resultsCulture and positivity (culture + PCR/NGS) positivity was 28.8% and 56.1%, respectively. GPC was most susceptible to cefazolin, linezolid, and vancomycin; GNB was most susceptible to amikacin, ceftazidime, colistin, and imipenem. There was no susceptibility difference between cefazolin and vancomycin (p = 0.999) and between ceftazidime and imipenem (p = 1.0). Colistin was superior to ceftazidime (p = 0.047) against GNB. The GNB resistant to amikacin (n = 14) were equally susceptible to ceftazidime and colistin; resistant to ceftazidime (n = 16) were susceptible to colistin; and resistant to colistin (n = 7) were susceptible to ceftazidime. The preference of VRSI members (n = 231) practicing in India was a vancomycin-ceftazidime combination (82%), vancomycin for GPC (94%), ceftazidime for GNB (61%), and voriconazole for fungi (74%).

conclusionIn EMS, GPC had good susceptibility to vancomycin; GNB had good susceptibility to ceftazidime and colistin. Given the lower resistance of colistin, a vancomycin-colistin combination could be an alternative empiric treatment in post-cataract endophthalmitis in India.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaEndophthalmitisEye Infections, BacterialIntravitreal InjectionsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsHumansIndiaPractice Patterns, Physicians'Vitreous BodyAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic susceptibilityEndophthalmitisIndiaIntravitreal antibioticsPractice pattern

Identifiers

PMID38319381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.