ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2025
Efficacy of a Ceftazidime-loaded Nanofiber Insert in Treating
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of ceftazidime-containing nanofibers in treating corneal ulcers induced by the bacterium Methods: This animal-assisted intervention involved 12 adult male New Zealand rabbits, each weighing between 3.5 and 4 kg. The animals were randomly assigned to two groups of six: an intervention group that received a ceftazidime nanofiber insert treatment and a control group that received no treatment. In the intervention group, the right eye was used as a test sample for ulcer induction and ceftazidime-loaded nanofiber examination, while the left eye served as a control to observe any inflammatory or irritating symptoms caused by the nanofiber in the absence of the active pharmaceutical compound. Examinations were performed daily, with slit lamp images taken on days 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 15. Clinical responses were recorded and graded according to a clinical examination table. Results: Prior to the intervention, both groups exhibited a similar severity of corneal ulcers. After 48 hours, four of the six rabbits in the intervention group were positive for Conclusion: Given the observed effectiveness of the developed nanofiber in treating corneal ulcers induced by
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.