ReviewOman journal of ophthalmology
Fungal keratitis treatment: Unveiling strategies and emerging trends - A systematic review.
Review in Oman journal of ophthalmology. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficacy of antifungal medications for fungal keratitis through a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect was performed, including randomized controlled trials (RCT), cohort, and case-control studies on antifungal therapy for fungal keratitis. Keywords and MeSH terms, including "keratitis," "fungal keratitis," "antifungal," and "therapy," were used to identify relevant studies. The screening process was facilitated through Rayyan, an online-based platform. The inclusion criteria were English-language, full-text human studies on antifungal therapy. Data extraction included study details, interventions, outcomes, and adverse effects, with efficacy evaluated on a scale of 0-2 based on clinical outcomes. Twelve RCT involving 1.715 adult patients from India, China, and Nepal were reviewed. The mean patient age was 48.1 years, with males predominating. All studies used 5% natamycin eye drops, with seven incorporating voriconazole in various forms. Additional therapies included chlorhexidine, amphotericin B, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, hypochlorous acid (HOCI), and ketoconazole. Seven studies reported significant improvements in best-corrected visual acuity, infiltrate size, and treatment success. Natamycin monotherapy was shown to have the highest efficacy with a score of 11. Combination therapies, including voriconazole showed effectiveness but with slightly lower scores. In severe cases, combining natamycin with systemic antifungals such as voriconazole, ketoconazole, or amphotericin B was necessary for optimal outcomes.
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.