Observational studyEye (London, England)2025
Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis: international, multicentre, retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes following surgical and medical management, and screening.
Observational study 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aspergillosis: An Update on Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Susceptibility, and Treatment.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ophthalmologic Evaluation and Clinical Outcome in Candidemia: A 7-Year Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- The Impact of Vitreoretinal Surgery in Patients with Uveitis: Current Strategies and Emerging Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report the clinical outcomes of surgical management versus medical management alone in cases of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Additionally, we explore the role of routine ophthalmic screening.
methodsRetrospective observational multicentre study. We examined the databases of five UK centres and a tertiary centre in the United States for patients with Candida septicaemia (candidemia) and/or clinically established endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Clinical data including visual acuity and other outcomes were reviewed and analysed with statistics.
resultsA total of 404 patients were included from all centres. Forty-six eyes were diagnosed clinically as presumed EFE - of which 25 were later confirmed with positive vitreous biopsies. 18/46 received systemic medical treatment with or without intravitreal injection of antifungal agents and without a significant logMAR vision improvement from 1.15 ± 0.29 at baseline to 0.74 ± 0.21 at last follow up. The remaining 28/46 eyes received both systemic medical treatment and vitrectomy, and visual acuity improved from 1.56 ± 0.19 to 1.14 ± 0.21 after surgery (p = 0.04). At the last follow up, 18/28 eyes (64.3%) had an attached retina with no tamponade, three attached under oil and two ending up with detached retina. Silicone oil was retained in three eyes due to either patient comorbidities precluding further surgery or due to surgeon preference to ensure long-term anatomical stability. Two cases resulted in macular and/or fibrovascular scarring and one in enucleation. Out of 359 patients with candidemia, 95 (26.4%) had ophthalmological examination and only 9 (9.47% of those examined and 2.5% of the total) had endogenous fungal endophthalmitis (7 confirmed with vitreous sample cultures and 2 presumed).
conclusionAlthough our findings suggest that vitrectomy may improve outcomes in select cases of EFE, the retrospective nature of our study and the potential for bias mandate cautious interpretation. Therefore, further prospective studies are necessary to shed more light with novel insights. A more targeted, case-by-case screening paradigm for patients with candidemia is advocated for optimum outcomes and efficient use of resources.
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.