ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Microbiology of acute bacterial dacryocystitis: a tertiary institutional experience in South Australia.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute dacryocystitis: Microbiological profiles from an infectious diseases perspective.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide a comprehensive microbiological profile of bacterial dacryocystitis in South Australia. By identifying the specific microorganism and antibiotic susceptibility, this study intends to aid ophthalmologists in choosing appropriate empirical antibiotic therapies and development of evidence-based clinical guidelines.
methodA retrospective study was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) over five years (2018-2023) of patients with acute dacryocystitis. The study included 43 patients, and data encompassed demographic information, clinical presentation, microbiological analysis, management, and outcomes. Patients with chronic dacryocystitis were excluded.
resultsAmong the 43 patients included in the study (female 28 (65%), mean age: 64 years old), the most common clinical features were pain (74%) and swelling (70%). Organisms were identified in 49% of patients, with the predominant bacteria being Staphylococcus aureus (42%), Streptococcus species (19%), and Escherichia coli (8%). Aggregatibacter species (8%), Morganella morganii (4%), Enterobacter cloaceae (4%), Hafnia alvei (4%), mixed anaerobes (4%), E coliforms (4%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4%) were also identified. The most frequently prescribed empirical antibiotics were amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (50%), flucloxacillin (33%) and cefalexin (18%).
conclusionThe microbiological trends of acute dacryocystitis have largely remained consistent, with a predominance of Gram positive organisms. This is the most recent profile analysis of acute dacryocystitis in South Australia and will help form evidence-based clinical guidelines.
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.