ArticleKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Intravitreal 0.625% Povidone-Iodine versus Antibiotic Injection for Postoperative Endophthalmitis.
Article in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Visual Acuity Influences Visual Outcome in Endophthalmitis: A 10-Year Retrospective Observational Cohort Analysis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePostoperative endophthalmitis is a sight-threatening intraocular infection requiring prompt treatment. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intravitreal 0.625% povidone-iodine (PI) injection with intravitreal antibiotic injection for the treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis.
methodsA retrospective review of 40 eyes diagnosed with postoperative endophthalmitis was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 received intravitreal 0.625% PI injection (0.1 mL), while group 2 received intravitreal antibiotic injection. Clinical data, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure, the number of intravitreal injections, duration of anterior chamber hypopyon, and the need for pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), were analyzed.
resultsGroup 1 (24 eyes) showed significant improvements in BCVA posttreatment (mean, 1.04 ± 0.95 logMAR; p < 0.001) compared to group 2 (16 eyes; mean, 1.26 ± 0.99 logMAR; p = 0.092). Severe visual impairment (BCVA < 10 / 100) was significantly less frequent in group 1 (25.0%) than in group 2 (62.5%) (p = 0.025). The mean duration of hypopyon was shorter in group 1 (2.6 ± 2.2 days) compared to group 2 (6.4 ± 7.3 days, p = 0.048). Fewer intravitreal injections (p = 0.002) and PPV (p = 0.002) were required in group 1.
conclusionsIntravitreal 0.625% PI injection was associated with fewer intravitreal injections, shorter hypopyon duration, and more favorable visual outcome-related measures, including significant visual improvement from baseline and a lower frequency of severe visual impairment, compared with intravitreal antibiotic treatment. These findings suggest that PI may be considered a safe and effective initial treatment option for postoperative endophthalmitis. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these results.
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.