ArticleJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2024
Use of in vivo confocal microscopy in suspected Acanthamoeba keratitis: a 12-year real-world data study at a Swedish regional referral center.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Explainable federated transformer framework for joint leukemia classification and stage prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic features of Acanthamoeba keratitis via in vivo confocal microscopy.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report real-world data (RWD) on the use of in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) in handling cases of suspected Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) cases at a regional referral center during a 12-year period.
methodsRetrospective study of patients with suspected AK presenting at a regional referral center for IVCM in Sweden from 2010 to 2022. Demographics, symptoms, outcomes, and clinical management were analyzed, and IVCM images were interpreted.
resultsOf 74 included patients with suspected AK, 18 (24%) were IVCM-positive, 33 (44%) were IVCM-negative, 15 had inconclusive IVCM results (20.2%), and 8 (11%) were referred for a second opinion based on IVCM, 4 of which were IVCM-positive (5.5%), yielding an overall IVCM-positive rate of 29.5%. Cultures were taken in 38 cases (51%) with only 2 cases (2.7%) culture-positive for AK. Of IVCM-negative cases, cultures were taken in 22 (67%) of cases and 100% of these were AK-negative. IVCM-positive cases had more clinic visits (median 30, P = 0.018) and longer follow-up time (median 890 days, P = 0.009) than IVCM-negative patients, while visual acuity improvement did not differ (P > 0.05). Of IVCM-positive cases, 10 (56%) underwent surgery despite prior anti-amoebic treatment, and 14 (78%) had 3 or more IVCM examinations during follow-up, with cysts (100%), dendritic cells (89%) and inflammatory infiltrate (67%) as the most prevalent features. Longitudinal IVCM indicated improvement in cysts, dendritic cells and subbasal nerves with treatment, while clinical resolution was not always consistent with complete absence of cysts.
conclusionsIn a real-world setting, IVCM has a high reliability in classifying AK-negative cases, while IVCM detects AK-positive cases more frequently than the gold-standard culture method, leading to its preferential use over the culture method where time or resources are limited. Despite this, a subset of cases are IVCM-inconclusive, the clinical course of referred patients is long requiring many hospital visits, and visual acuity in most cases does not improve with medical treatment alone. Information sharing across centers and standardization of referral and diagnostic routines is needed to exploit the full potential of IVCM in AK patient management.
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.