Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707574›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2024

Analysis of topical conjunctival microbiotic cultures in patients treated with intravitreal injections using antibiotic prophylaxis with 0.3% ofloxacin eye drops.

Luca Bongiovanni de Miranda Gonçalves, Maria Leticia Lasca Sales Campos, Guilherme Feltrin Barros, Glaucia Luciano da Veiga, Juliana Antoniali Silva, Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca, Thaís Moura Gascón, Samantha Sanches de Carvalho, Andrea Karla Ribeiro de Carvalho, Greicy Ellen Pinheiro Fernandes and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

12 authors.

Luca Bongiovanni de Miranda GonçalvesCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil. lucafasm@gmail.com.
Maria Leticia Lasca Sales CamposCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Guilherme Feltrin BarrosCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Glaucia Luciano da VeigaCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Juliana Antoniali SilvaCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Fernando Luiz Affonso FonsecaCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Thaís Moura GascónCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Samantha Sanches de CarvalhoCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Andrea Karla Ribeiro de CarvalhoCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Greicy Ellen Pinheiro FernandesCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Vagner Loduca LimaCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.
Tiago Mirco LimaCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC/FMABC, Santo André, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravitreal injections, a relatively recent treatment in ophthalmology, is being adopted rapidly worldwide and becoming one of the most common therapies in the field. Numerous complications are associated with this treatment, ranging from minor inflammatory ailments to endophthalmitis. We analyzed the conjunctival flora of patients treated with intravitreal injections and topical antibiotics.

methodsThe study was a longitudinal prospective analysis of cultures and antibiograms collected from patients who underwent intravitreal injections and topical antibiotics afterwards at the retina clinic in ABC's Medical University.

resultsA total of 148 swabs obtained from 98 patients were cultured and underwent antibiotic sensitivity testing. All bacteria were sensitive to vancomycin, and with the exception of Escherichia coli samples, they were also sensitive to a third-generation cephalosporin (ceftriaxone-same class and generation as ceftazidime), both of which are important antibiotics for the treatment of endophthalmitis. The bacteria species were specifically coagulase-negative Staphylococcus sp. 92% of which was penicillin-resistant and 56.9% was resistant to ciprofloxacin, a second-generation fluoroquinolone. The culture results were similar to that described in the literature and showed the same higher prevalence of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus sp. and S. epidermidis. Regarding the antibiotic resistance profiles, vancomycin, a third-generation cephalosporin, and penicillin showed almost identical results to those reported previously. Regarding fluoroquinolones, the incidence of resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus sp. was lower than the findings worldwide, but the resistance rates found were: S. aureus (26.7%), S. epidermidis (61.3%), and Staphylococcus sp. (coagulase negative, 56.9%).

conclusionsThe current results showed that the typical conjunctival bacteria had higher resistance to fluoroquinolones (although they were not tested specifically to ofloxacin), suggesting a possible selection of resistant bacteria that should not be taken for granted in clinic. However, the same bacteria did not exhibit cross-resistance in the analysis of vancomycin and third-generation cephalosporins. This real-world, longitudinal, prospective study on conjunctival flora analyzed bacterial resistance profiles and contemporary antibiotic use, offering deeper insights into this subject.

Indexed as

Conjunctival microbiotaEndophthalmitisIntravitreal injection

Identifiers

PMID39707574
PMCPMC11660893

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.