ArticleMicroorganisms2024
Assessing PCR-Positive Acanthamoeba Keratitis-A Retrospective Chart Review.
Article in Microorganisms, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Viral Spectrum of Herpetic Keratitis: A 15-Year Retrospective Analysis from Switzerland.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Incidence of Acanthamoeba Keratitis in Switzerland.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Acanthamoeba Keratitis Management and Prognostic Factors: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The pathogenesis, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of Acanthamoeba keratitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ophthalmologists' diagnostic and treatment competence in Acanthamoeba keratitis varies widely. This investigator-initiated, retrospective, single-center chart review examined the electronic patient files regarding PCR-positive Acanthamoeba keratitis. We included corneal and contact lens assessments. We further reviewed the patient's medical history, corneal scraping results regarding viral or fungal co-infections, and the duration from symptom onset to final diagnosis. We identified 59 eyes of 52 patients from February 2010 to February 2023, with 31 of 52 (59.6%) being female patients. The median (IQR, range) patient age was 33 (25.3 to 45.5 [13 to 90]) years, and the mean (SD, range) time to diagnosis after symptom onset was 18 (10.5 to 35 [3 to 70]) days. Overall, 7 of 52 (7.7%) patients displayed a bilateral Acanthamoeba infection, and 48 (92.3%) used contact lenses at symptom onset. Regarding other microbiological co-infections, we found virologic PCR testing in 45 of 52 (86.5%) patients, with 3 (6.7%) positive corneal scrapings. Fungal cultures were performed in 49 of 52 (94.2%) patients, with 5 (10.2%) positive corneal scrapings. The medical treatment success rate was 45/46 (97.8%). This study raises awareness of patient education in contact lens handling and screens for further microbial co-infections in suspected Acanthamoeba cases.
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.