ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Design and Validation of Endophthalmitis Infectivity Measurement Algorithm in Post Cataract Acute Endophthalmitis: EMS Report No. 6.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We constructed a clinical clue-based algorithm to identify the microbiology-positive post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis. Methods: The Endophthalmitis Infectivity Measurement Algorithm (EIMA) was constructed using presenting Snellen vision (Letter score [LS]) and Inflammation Score (IS, from the cornea, anterior chamber, iris, and vitreous). Retrospective data (70% for training; 30% for testing) was fitted into CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection). EIMA was validated with prospective data. EIMA-categorized disease severity was weighed against the symptom duration to detect infecting micro-organisms. Results: EIMA was constructed from 1444 retrospective data. The average LS was 6.03 ± 12.11, median IS was 14 (8-24), and culture positivity was 38%. The accuracy and area under the curve of CHAID were 66.36% and 0.642, respectively. EIMA was validated with 175 prospectively collected data. Microbiology positivity (culture + sequencing) was 58.9%. EIMA sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy against microbiology-positive endophthalmitis were 73.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.19-81.96), 81.9 (95% CI, 71.1-90.02), 77.1 (95% CI, 70.20-83.14), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 4.08 (95% CI, 2.46-6.67) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.22-0.45), respectively. There was higher microbial growth in two days or less than in three- to six-day symptom duration (69.9% vs. 28.2%; P = 0.018) endophthalmitis. Gram-negative infection was higher in two days or less (55.6% vs. 20.2%; P = 0.014), and gram-positive infection was higher in three- to six-day endophthalmitis (62.1% vs. 27.7%; P = 0.027). Conclusions: EIMA identified microbiology-positive endophthalmitis three-quarters of the time. Translational Relevance: EIMA suggested infectivity and the class of microbial infection could help targeted management of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.
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.