ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Clinical efficacy of intrastromal voriconazole injection in fungal keratitis involving different corneal stromal depths.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of intrastromal injection of 0.5% (5 mg/mL) voriconazole in fungal keratitis (FK) involving different corneal stromal depths.
methodsThis was a non-randomized, retrospective study based on patient treatment preferences. A total of 53 patients (53 eyes) with confirmed fungal keratitis treated between March 2021 and December 2023 were enrolled. Based on anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) findings, lesions were stratified by depth into superficial stromal involvement (Group A, n = 29) and deep stromal involvement (Group B, n = 24). Each group was further subdivided according to treatment modality: non-injection group (conventional antifungal therapy) (subgroups A1 and B1) versus injection group (conventional antifungal therapy combined with intrastromal voriconazole injection) (subgroups A2 and B2). The following clinical parameters were compared among the four subgroups: reduction ratio of corneal epithelial staining area at 7 days post-treatment initiation, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), corneal epithelial healing time, clinical cure time, and final clinical outcomes.
resultsAll groups demonstrated significant reduction in ulcer area after 7 days of treatment (P < 0.05). In superficial stromal fungal keratitis, ulcer improvement rates were comparable between groups A1 (37.19%) and A2 (36.11%) (P = 0.838). In deep stromal fungal keratitis, group B2 (41.30%) showed significantly greater improvement compared to B1 (14.95%) (P < 0.0001). Final BCVA improved significantly in all groups, with no significant intergroup differences. Epithelial healing time and clinical cure time showed no significant differences across groups. The overall clinical cure rate was 98.1%, achieved through the non-injection group in 79.2% of cases and the injection group in 18.9% of cases. Treatment failure occurred in one case (1.9%).
conclusionsIntrastromal voriconazole injection provides no additional benefit for superficial stromal fungal keratitis compared with conventional topical therapy and is therefore not recommended as routine treatment given its invasive nature. For deep stromal fungal keratitis, intrastromal injection demonstrates superior early lesion control but does not reduce overall disease duration or improve final visual outcomes. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to establish its optimal indications and clinical value.
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.