ArticleCornea2026
Diagnostic Yield of Corneal, Contact Lens, and Lens Fluid Cultures in Microbial Keratitis: A 12-Year Single-Center Study.
Article in Cornea, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the yield of culturing contact lenses (CL) and contact lens fluid/cases (CLF) to isolate recognized pathogens in suspected microbial keratitis (MK).
methodsData from 4298 ocular samples of MK collected at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2023 were reviewed. The isolation rates and proportion of recognized pathogens were compared between corneal impression membranes (CIM) and scrapes (CS), CL, and CLF. Chi-square tests and mixed-effects logistic models were used to assess differences in distribution among all isolates and subgroups of samples.
resultsThe overall isolation rate was 54.1%, with CL having the highest rate ([348/466], 74.7%), followed by CIM ([1822/2940], 62%), CS ([126/566], 22.3%), and CLF ([23/317], 7.3%). CLF, however, had the highest proportion of recognized pathogens ([22/28], 78.6%), followed by CL ([269/531], 50.7%), CS ([71/142], 50%), and CIM ([728/2218], 32.8%). CIM and CS predominantly detected Gram-positive bacteria, whereas CLF had the highest rates of Acanthamoeba ([13/28], 46.4%) and fungal isolates ([4/28], 14.3%). CL and/or CLF cultures led to altered treatment in 10.5% of cases.
conclusionsIn suspected MK, culturing the CLF and CL can increase the probability of detecting a recognized pathogen that in turn may help guide 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.