ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2025
The Natural History of Acanthamoeba Keratitis: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcanthamoeba keratitis (AK) was first identified in 1972 and the first patient cured with propamidine was reported in 1985. Treatment outcomes, before the advent of the first effective anti-amoebic treatment, were known to be poor and often required therapeutic keratoplasty (TK) but have not been evaluated in detail. Analysis of these outcomes has value for several reasons: it gives an historical perspective, describes the natural history of AK when the disease was minimally modified by the early treatments and provides a benchmark against which current treatments can be compared and how these have changed the therapeutic results.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review for the period 1970-1995 using PRISMA guidelines. The population of interest comprised patients with AK treated without products having established anti-amoebic activity against both trophozoites and cysts (biguanides or diamidines). The outcomes of interest were medical cure, TK and enucleation. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals were estimated.
resultsFifty-six case reports were eligible. Risk factors for AK were reported in 44/56 patients: contact lens wear in 30/44 (68.2%) and trauma in 14/44 (31.8%). The mean time from presentation to diagnosis was 7.3 weeks (standard deviation 9.3 weeks); 13/56 (23.2%) were diagnosed within 4 weeks. Topical treatments given to patients included corticosteroids (85.2%), antibiotics (85.2%), antivirals (72.2%) and antifungals (51.8%). Final visual acuity was ≥ 20/40 in 17/33 (51.5%) patients with no missing data. Medical cures were reported in 11/56 patients (19.6%), TK in 38/56 (67.9%), other surgery in 4/56 (7.1%) and enucleation in 3/56 (5.4%).
conclusionThis study suggests that, before the availability of propamidine as the first effective treatment for AK, the clinical outcome of these patients was poor with only a few patients cured without surgery. These findings should be interpreted with caution because they rely on case reports and series that are subject to inherent bias.
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.