ArticleJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2024
Impact of contact lens hygiene risk factors on the prevalence of contact lens-related keratitis in Alexandria-Egypt.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection, 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.
- Clinical presentations, complications, and outcomes of benoxinate topical ophthalmic anesthetic abuse: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2026Article
- Risk behaviors for infectious Keratitis among contact lens wearers in Switzerland: an analysis by contact lens type.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
- Prognostic factors for therapeutic keratoplasty in Acanthamoeba keratitis: a retrospective study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Acanthamoeba Keratitis Management and Prognostic Factors: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed at measuring the effect of contact lens hygiene risk factors on the prevalence of contact lens-related keratitis and identifying the specific risk factors to both microbial and non-microbial keratitis independently.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at Alexandria Ophthalmology Hospital from May to October 2023. All contact lens wearers attending the outpatient clinic had undergone face-to-face interviews using a standardized validated questionnaire which included demographic data and contact lenses (CLs) hygiene risk factors. Participants were classified into two groups; normal group and keratitis group. Keratitis group was further subdivided into non-microbial and microbial group.
resultsThe study included 245 contact lens wearers; 149 normal cases, 50 (20.4%) contact lens-related non-microbial keratitis (CLNK) cases, and 46 (18.8%) contact lens-related microbial keratitis (CLMK) cases. Sharing contact lenses and eye trauma were significant risk factors for both CLNK (p=0.036), (p=0.001) and CLMK (p=0.003), (p=0.017). CLs wear duration for more than 12 hours was associated with an increased risk of CLNK by about 4 times (p=0.030) and overnight wear of contact lenses increased the risk of CLNK by 2.6 times (p=0.030). Showering or swimming in lenses was identified as a significant risk factor for CLMK (p=0.012), moreover washing lenses with tap water increased the risk of CLMK (p=0.030).
conclusionsPoor compliance with contact lenses hygiene rules results in a high prevalence of contact lens-related keratitis. Eye trauma and sharing contact lenses were significant hygiene risk factors for both contact lens-related non-microbial keratitis and contact lens-related microbial keratitis.
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.