Ocular scedosporiosis: A case series.

Marcus L Turner, Minh Nguyen, Julie Schallhorn, Gerami D Seitzman

Abstract readCase Reports

In one paragraph

Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marcus L TurnerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Minh NguyenDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Julie SchallhornDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Gerami D SeitzmanDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To report five cases of ocular scedosporiosis with associated predisposing factors, treatment courses, and clinical outcomes. Observation: This case series consists of 5 patients diagnosed with ocular scedosporiosis. Two patients were female and 3 were male. The average age was 68.4 years (range 53-85). Four of the 5 had a clear history of ocular surgery or ocular trauma with organic foreign material. Two developed sclero-keratitis. Two had cornea-only involvement. There was 1 scleritis-only case. Patients with scleritis required topical and systemic treatment. Patients with only keratitis were treated topically. The two patients with sclero-keratitis ultimately progressed to eye removal despite maximal therapy. Conclusion and importance: Ocular scedosporiosis is exceedingly rare, especially in the Unites States. We highlight similarities and differences of five ocular scedosporiosis cases. Most cases involved either ocular surgery or contamination with ground or plant matter. This case series highlights the challenge of the diagnosis and the aggressivity of this disease.

Indexed as

Infectious keratitisInfectious scleritisScedosporium

Identifiers

PMID39502456

DOI10.1016/j.ajoc.2024.102190

PMCPMC11535890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.