Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41419596›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2026

The association between treatment method, microbiological findings, and visual acuity in endophthalmitis patients: A retrospective, multi-centred study.

Shayaan Kaleem, Andrew Mihalache, Amir-Ali Golrokhian-Sani, Abbie Lai, Chris Zajner, Marko M Popovic, Sameen Kaleem, Peter J Kertes, Rajeev H Muni, David T Wong

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shayaan KaleemTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrew MihalacheTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2692-0759
Amir-Ali Golrokhian-SaniFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abbie LaiMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Chris ZajnerSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Marko M PopovicDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0370-5968
Sameen KaleemFaculty of Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter J KertesDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rajeev H MuniDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
David T WongDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. david.wong@unityhealth.to.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDetermine the association between initial treatment method (tap and inject [T/I] or pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]) and microbiology findings on post-treatment visual acuity (VA) in endophthalmitis patients.

methodsThis retrospective study evaluated patients treated for endophthalmitis in Toronto, Canada. The association between treatment, microbiology, and VA at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-treatment was analysed using linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, time to treatment, and baseline VA.

resultsA total of 111 patients were treated with initial T/I (n = 93, 84%) or PPV (n = 18, 16%) between 2011 and 2023. Microbiology identified 69 (62%) culture-negative, 36 (32%) bacterial, and 6 (5%) fungal cases. Adjusted VA improvement did not differ between bacterial and culture-negative groups at all timepoints, including 1 month (-0.68 ± 0.86 vs. -0.69 ± 0.87 logMAR, p = 0.98, n = 102) and last measured follow-up (-1.01 ± 0.90 vs. -0.84 ± 0.83 logMAR, p = 0.35, n = 105). VA improvement also did not differ between T/I and PPV at all timepoints, including at 1 month (-0.66 ± 0.87 vs. -0.50 ± 0.78 logMAR, p = 0.55, n = 108) and last measured follow-up (-0.91 ± 0.86 vs. -0.60 ± 0.80 logMAR, p = 0.20, n = 111). Last measured follow-up time did not differ between T/I and PPV (6.0 vs. 3.8 months, p = 0.05) or between bacterial and culture-negative groups (6.1 vs. 5.6 months, p = 0.85). Retreatment rates were similar between T/I and PPV (35% vs. 33%, OR = 0.95, p = 0.93), but higher in bacterial vs. culture-negative cases (56% vs. 22%, OR = 4.80, p < 0.01).

conclusionsVisual outcomes did not differ by treatment or microbiology. Bacterial cases had higher retreatment rates than culture-negative cases.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsEndophthalmitisEye Infections, BacterialEye Infections, FungalVisual AcuityVitrectomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteriaFemaleHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID41419596
PMCPMC12881474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.