Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42520042›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

OphthoEvidence report: Comparative effects of prophylactic strategies for post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Maryam Ghadimi, Dena Zeraatkar, João Pedro Lima, Jinhui Ma, Sunir Garg, Peter Kaiser, David Steel, Tien Yin Wong, Sobha Sivaprasad, Charles Wykoff and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Maryam GhadimiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Dena ZeraatkarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
João Pedro LimaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5486-7211
Jinhui MaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sunir GargThe Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Mid Atlantic Retina, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Peter KaiserCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
David SteelBioscience Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Tien Yin WongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8448-1264
Sobha SivaprasadNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8952-0659
Charles WykoffRetina Consultants of Texas, Houston, Texas, Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7756-5091
Varun ChaudharyDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-4146

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndophthalmitis is a rare but serious complication of intravitreal injections (IVI). To mitigate the risk of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE), retinal specialists use different strategies, combining various prophylactic measures. However, existing systematic reviews have evaluated the effects of these measures in isolation, which does not consider their concurrent use in practice. A trustworthy systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) by providing a framework for simultaneous comparisons of different prophylactic combinations is essential to guide decision-making.

objectivesTo present a protocol for addressing the comparative effects of different strategies for the prevention of PIE.

methodsWe will search Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any strategy for preventing PIE with an alternative strategy, or placebo, or no prophylactic strategy in patients aged 18 years or older who received IVI of any pharmacological agent for any indication except treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis. Paired reviewers will independently screen studies, extract the data and assess risk of bias for each outcome that includes infectious endophthalmitis, confirmed endophthalmitis, any endophthalmitis, need for surgical intervention for management of PIE, and best-corrected visual acuity. For each outcome, when possible, we will conduct frequentist random-effects NMAs. We will assess the certainty of evidence and interpret findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and NMA will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the evidence addressing the effects of all available strategies for the prevention of PIE. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJC4U).

Indexed as

EndophthalmitisIntravitreal InjectionsHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID42520042
PMCPMC13411906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.