Trial reportBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Acute fungal post-cataract endophthalmitis in the endophthalmitis management study: EMS report 7.
Trial report in BMJ open 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.
- Non-intravenous Amphotericin B: A Review of Localized Administration Routes.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimInvestigate and characterise acute post-cataract fungal endophthalmitis pooled from the Endophthalmitis Management Study occurring within 6 weeks of primary surgery.
methodsThe fungal infection was confirmed through conventional and molecular microbiology work-ups and antifungal susceptibility testing. Clinical examination included measurement of distant vision and intraocular pressure, anterior segment photo documentation and inflammation score (IS) measurement. Per the microbiology report, the eyes were divided into culture-positive (C+), sequencing-positive (S+) and sequencing-positive-unidentified (U+) fungi. Clinical correlations and statistical comparisons were performed between these three cohorts.
resultsThe study identified 21 patients with fungal endophthalmitis; it was 9.5% (21 of 220) of all acute post-cataract endophthalmitis in this study. Per the microbiology report, C+, S+ and U+ were 6, 9 and 6 patients, respectively.
conclusionThere is a 10% probability of acute post-cataract fungal endophthalmitis in India. The eyes presenting with corneal abscesses carry a higher risk. The polymicrobial infections shown in this cohort should be interpreted cautiously since next-generation sequencing detects DNA from all organisms, including residual or low-abundance or non-viable organisms that traditional culture might miss. Despite this, the new molecular microbiology technology is necessary to confirm diagnosis and expedite appropriate treatment. Given multi-antifungal agent resistance, routine susceptibility testing must be considered.
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.