ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Association Between
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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.
- Hand-Washing Habits in a Sample of Spanish Soft Contact Lens Wearers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical Features and Visual Outcome of Infectious Keratitis Associated with Orthokeratology Lens in Korean Pediatric Patients.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimGiven the characteristics of Serratia marcescens (S. marcescens), this study aimed at investigating its presence in the hands and contact lens cases of orthokeratology wearers, along with the status of bacterial contamination. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe 39 patients received the questionnaires about the background of orthokeratology and hygiene habits. A total of 39 contact lens cases and 39 hand samples from the patients were collected at Show Chwan Memorial Hospital from June to August in 2020 and sent to National Chung Cheng University for DNA extraction and PCR identification.
resultsThe results indicated a detection rate of 5.13% for S. marcescens in the contact lens cases and 12.82% in the hand samples. Additionally, 66.67% of contact lens case samples and 30.77% of hand samples found positive for 16s bacterial amplicons. The relationship between hand contamination and the duration of contact lens usage were revealed for both S. marcescens (p=0.021) and 16s bacterial amplicons (p=0.048).
conclusionThe results indicated that hand hygiene is more critical than focusing on contact lens hygiene when it comes to preventing S. marcescens infections. Nevertheless, both proper hand and contact lens hygiene practices can reduce the detection of bacterial eye pathogens, especially a common intestinal bacterium.
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.