ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Clinical retrospective analysis of 218 cases of infectious endophthalmitis.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endophthalmitis caused by Shinella species: the first case report.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2026Article
- A Pilot Metagenomic Study Demonstrating Virtual Reality Head Mounted Displays Utilized in Medical Education Are Reservoirs of Viable Pathogenic Microbes.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEndophthalmitis is a serious medical condition that needs immediate antibiotic therapy. There are few studies analyzing the pathogenic bacteria of endophthalmitis in China recently. This study was conducted to analyze the pathogenic factors, pathogenic bacteria and prognosis of infectious endophthalmitis.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2016 to December 2020 in Shanxi Eye Hospital. Statistical analysis by using Logistic regression analysis were performed to evaluate of independent risk factor for prognostic factors for poor visual acuity.
resultsPositive case of specimen culture was detected in 96 cases, accounting for 44.04%. Staphylococcus epidermidis, the most common bacteria, accounted for 32.98% (31/94), mainly in traumatic endophthalmitis and postoperative endophthalmitis, and was extremely sensitive to vancomycin (96.77%). The Gram-positive bacteria were highly sensitive to vancomycin (87.01%) and relatively sensitive to levofloxacin (68.83%). Gram-negative bacteria were highly sensitive to levofloxacin (88.24%). 12.39% of patients with visual acuity > 0.02 at admission and 27.98% at discharge, the difference was statistically significant (χ
conclusionsAs society progresses and hygiene concepts increase in China, the bacteria that cause infection are changing, and factors that influence prognosis may also be changing. Clarifying the different causative factors and etiological characteristics of infectious endophthalmitis are important to provide appropriate clinical treatment.
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.