ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Long term analysis of microbiological isolates and antibiotic susceptibilities in acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis: a UK multicentre study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Acuity Influences Visual Outcome in Endophthalmitis: A 10-Year Retrospective Observational Cohort Analysis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Pathogen Spectrum and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles in Culture-Proven Endophthalmitis at a Tertiary Referral Center in China: A Three-Decade Retrospective Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microbiological etiology of endogenous and exogenous postprocedural endophthalmitis: a 5-year German federal state study.Infection · 2026Article
- Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus hominis endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: A case report.IDCases · 2026Article
- Role of Sanger Sequencing in the Early Diagnosis of Infective Endophthalmitis: Experience From a Pilot Study.Cureus · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the trend of microbial isolates for postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) in the United Kingdom (UK) and determine the sensitivity to current empirical intravitreal antibiotic treatment.
methodsWe conducted a long term multicentre consecutive case review of POE across 3 geographically distant tertiary eye centres in the UK: Sunderland Eye Infirmary (2000-2022), Oxford Eye Hospital (2016-2022), and Southampton General Hospital (2016-2022). Data on the microbial samples taken and results including sensitivities to antibiotics agents given were collected. Poisson regression was used to analyse microbial trends and outcomes were considered statistically significant at a level of p < 0.05.
results179 consecutive eyes of 177 patients with POE met our inclusion criteria. The most common primary procedure was phacoemulsification and IOL insertion followed by intravitreal injections. 104 (58.1%) were culture positive and most were Gram-positive bacteria (85, 81.7%). The microbial trend consistently showed Staphylococcus epidermidis and unspecified coagulase-negative Staphylococci to be the most prevalent pathogens. Poisson regression showed no statistically significant change in any of the bacterial isolates over our study period. Antibiotic sensitivity data was available for 74% of the culture positive samples (77/104). All Gram-positive bacteria (68/68, 100%) and most (8/9, 88.9%) Gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to the empirical antibiotics (Vancomycin and Ceftazidime/Amikacin) given at presentation.
conclusionsMost of the bacterial isolates causing POE in the UK are Gram-positive bacteria, and the trend has remained stable over more than two decades. Current empirical treatment with intravitreal Vancomycin and Ceftazidime/Amikacin provides effective broad coverage for the vast majority of cases.
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.