ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Evaluating Photochemical Interactions Between Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy and Topical Antifungals in Fungal Keratitis Isolates.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects of combining rose bengal (RB) photodynamic antimicrobial therapy (PDAT) with conventional topical antifungals (amphotericin B, natamycin, and voriconazole) on clinical Fusarium and Aspergillus isolates and to determine the antifungal stability under experimental conditions. Methods: Clinical isolates of Fusarium spp. (n = 3) and Aspergillus spp. (n = 3) were cultured using standard microbiology techniques. Agar plates were prepared with three concentrations of amphotericin B, natamycin, or voriconazole along with plates containing no antifungals. The following groups were tested in both dark and light conditions: (1) antifungal monotherapy (antifungal only), (2) RB monotherapy (RB only), and (3) antifungal and RB combination therapy. Plates were incubated for 7 days and percent growth inhibition was quantified. UV-visible spectroscopy and mass spectrometry was performed to assess antifungal stability. Results: Overall, Fusarium isolates were more susceptible to RB-PDAT than Aspergillus isolates. RB-PDAT combination therapy with natamycin reduced growth inhibition, whereas combination therapy with voriconazole increased growth inhibition compared to antifungal monotherapy. UV-visible spectroscopy demonstrated 70% degradation of amphotericin B and full degradation of natamycin when combined with RB-PDAT, whereas voriconazole remained stable. Conclusions: Across both Fusarium and Aspergillus isolates, treatment responses to antifungals with or without RB-PDAT demonstrated strain-specific effects. The increased fungal inhibition and maintained stability of voriconazole when combined with RB-PDAT highlight its potential compatibility with RB-PDAT. In contrast, the reduced inhibition and degradation of natamycin and amphotericin B with RB-PDAT suggests that drug stability may be a factor to consider when integrating RB-PDAT into fungal keratitis management.
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.