ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Clinical characteristics, progression patterns and treatment outcomes in microsporidial keratoconjunctivitis: a prospective study in Thailand.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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.
- Clinical profile of microsporidial keratoconjunctivitis in healthy individuals of China -new species and neglected risk factors.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2026Article
- Atypical progression of microsporidial keratoconjunctivitis to immune ring keratitis: a case report.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Confocal microscopy in the early diagnosis of microsporidial keratitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the clinical characteristics, progression patterns, and treatment outcomes of microbiologically confirmed microsporidial keratoconjunctivitis (MKC).
methodsThis prospective cross-sectional study included patients with superficial punctate epithelial keratitis clinically suspected of MKC. Comprehensive slit-lamp examinations were conducted, and corneal scraping was performed for Gram-chromotrope staining and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. A standardized questionnaire gathered demographic data, clinical features, and risk behaviors. Treatment regimens and corneal findings, including medication and frequency, were documented at each visit.
resultsPCR confirmed the diagnosis of MKC in 96 out of 117 eyes (82.1%), identifying Vittaforma corneae in 93.7% of cases, Microsporidium sp. in 4.2%, and Encephalitozoon hellem in 2.1%. All cases exhibited similar characteristics and pattern of progression, including elevated epithelial lesions in diffused distribution (34.1%), typical target lesions (31.3%), and subepithelial infiltrations (41.7%). Treatment with topical moxifloxacin, with or without oral albendazole, followed by topical steroids for subepithelial infiltrates, led to clinical improvement within approximately two weeks, with 52% of patients achieving complete recovery.
conclusionsThis study identifies key clinical features and progression patterns in MKC. Topical fluoroquinolone monotherapy, or its combination with topical steroids or oral albendazole, results in favorable visual outcomes without corneal scarring. These insights may inform and enhance clinical management of MKC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39550733What 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.