ReviewWorld journal of clinical cases2026
Areas of uncertainty in endophthalmitis care.
Review in World journal of clinical cases, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endophthalmitis remains one of the most feared presentations in ophthalmic practice, not only because of its potential for rapid and irreversible vision loss but also due to the substantial diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic uncertainty that accompanies its management. Despite landmark trials, advances in vitreoretinal surgery, antimicrobial therapy, imaging, and molecular diagnostics, many aspects of endophthalmitis care continue to rely on clinical judgment rather than uniformly applicable, high-quality evidence. This review synthesizes contemporary areas of uncertainty spanning disease definition, diagnosis, treatment, antimicrobial resistance, and outcome prediction. We highlight the conceptual challenges in distinguishing infectious endophthalmitis from sterile or immune-mediated intraocular inflammation, particularly in culture-negative cases and post-intravitreal injection scenarios. Diagnostic ambiguity is compounded by limited microbiological yield, evolving molecular techniques with uncertain clinical interpretation, and supportive but non-specific imaging findings. Treatment-related uncertainties include the optimal timing and extent of vitrectomy in the era of small-gauge surgery, selection and dosing of intravitreal antimicrobials amid rising resistance and geographic variability, the contentious role of adjunctive corticosteroids, and management strategies for fungal and culture-negative endophthalmitis. Prognostication remains imprecise, with anatomical success often failing to predict functional recovery. Rather than reiterating established guidelines, this review focuses on real-world clinical gray zones and unresolved questions. Endophthalmitis is best viewed as a heterogeneous clinical syndrome shaped by microbial, host, and treatment-related factors. Recognizing uncertainty as an inherent feature of care underscores the need for individualized, adaptive decision-making and highlights priorities for future research, including standardized endpoints, region-specific surveillance, and integration of emerging imaging, molecular, and computational tools.
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.