ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Shifting trends in bacterial keratitis in a referral center.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to analyze the microbiological profile of bacterial keratitis, the antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial isolates and identify seasonal variations over an 11-year period.
methodsCharts of patients who were diagnosed with bacterial keratitis and underwent corneal scraping between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019 at a tertiary referral center in Türkiye were retrospectively evaluated. Demographic factors, culture positivity rate, microbiological profiles of bacterial keratitis, antibiotic susceptibilities and seasonal variation were analyzed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the automated system Phoenix 100TM (Becton Dickinson, USA), together with the disk diffusion method according to the EUCAST rules.
resultsOf a total of 389 corneal scrapes, culture positivity was observed in 142 with a total of 152 bacterial organisms that grew (73.7% Gram positive and 26.3% Gram negative). The most frequently isolated pathogen is coagulase-negative staphylococcus (32.2%). All Gram-positive bacteria were 100% sensitive to vancomycin and cefazolin. This was followed by moxifloxacin with 97.8% and gentamicin with 96.6%. The sensitivity of fusidic acid was lowest with 61.3%. All Gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to amikacin. Sensitivity was also 96.0% to gentamicin and 90.5% to ceftazidime. Fluoroquinolone sensitivity was 89.7%. During the 11-year period, the percentage of Gram-positive isolates decreased over time, while an increase in the percentage of Gram-negative isolates was observed. A significant seasonal shift was observed, with bacterial keratitis cases increasing in autumn and summer months, correlating with a rise in Gram-negative infections.
conclusionInstead of more potent antibiotics such as vancomycin and ceftazidime, high-susceptibility 4th generation quinolones such as moxifloxacin and levofloxacin, cefazolin, amikacin and gentamicin may be preferred for empirical treatment. A temporal trend indicating an increasing Gram-negative organisms prevalence was observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40553230What 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.