↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Adjunctive steroid therapy versus antibiotics alone for acute endophthalmitis after intraocular procedure

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
1 X user
6 Wikipedia pages


30 Dimensions

Readers on

137 Mendeley
Adjunctive steroid therapy versus antibiotics alone for acute endophthalmitis after intraocular procedure
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012131.pub2
Pubmed ID

Carole H Kim, Monica F Chen, Anne L Coleman


Endophthalmitis refers to severe infection within the eye that involves the aqueous humor or vitreous humor, or both, and threatens vision. Most cases of endophthalmitis are exogenous (i.e. due to inoculation of organisms from an outside source), and most exogenous endophthalmitis is acute and occurs after an intraocular procedure. The mainstay of treatment is emergent administration of broad-spectrum intravitreous antibiotics. Due to their anti-inflammatory effects, steroids in conjunction with antibiotics have been proposed to be beneficial in endophthalmitis management. To assess the effects of antibiotics combined with steroids versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of acute endophthalmitis following intraocular surgery or intravitreous injection. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 December 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 December 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 8 December 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 8 December 2016, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 8 December 2016, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 8 December 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of adjunctive steroids with antibiotics alone in the management of acute, clinically diagnosed endophthalmitis following intraocular surgery or intravitreous injection. We excluded trials with participants with endogenous endophthalmitis unless outcomes were reported by source of infection. We imposed no restrictions on the method or order of administration, dose, frequency, or duration of antibiotics and steroids. Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using methods expected by Cochrane. We contacted study authors to try to obtain missing information or information to clarify risk of bias. We conducted a meta-analysis for any outcomes that were reported by at least two studies. Outcomes reported from single studies were summarized in the text. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included three trials with a total of 95 randomized participants in this review and identified one ongoing trial. The studies were conducted in South Africa, India, and the Netherlands. Out of the 92 analyzed participants, 91 participants were diagnosed with endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. In the remaining participant, endophthalmitis was attributable to penetrating keratoplasty. All studies used intravitreous dexamethasone for adjunctive steroid therapy and a combination of two intravitreous antibiotics that provided gram-positive and gram-negative coverage for the antibiotic therapy. We judged one trial to be at overall low risk of bias and two studies to be at overall unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methods. None of the three trials had been registered in a clinical trial register.While none of the included studies reported the primary outcome of complete resolution of endophthalmitis as defined in our protocol, one study reported combined anatomical and functional success (i.e. proportion of participants with intraocular pressure of at least 5 mmHg and visual acuity of at least 6/120). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in combined success when comparing adjunctive steroid antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.45; 32 participants). Low-certainty evidence from two studies showed that a higher proportion of participants who received adjunctive dexamethasone had a good visual outcome (Snellen visual acuity 6/6 to 6/18) at three months compared with those in the antibiotics-alone group (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.60; 60 participants). Similarly, low-certainty evidence from one study suggested that more participants in the dexamethasone group had a good visual outcome at 12 months compared to those who did not receive dexamethasone (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.08; 28 participants). Investigators of one study reported improvement in visual acuity, but we could not estimate the effect of adjunctive steroid therapy because the study investigators did not provide standard deviations or standard errors. Two studies reported adverse events (retinal detachment, hypotony, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, and seclusion of pupil). The total numbers of adverse events were 8 out of 30 (26.7%) for those who received dexamethasone versus 6 out of 30 (20.0%) for those who did not. We could only perform a pooled analysis for the occurrence of retinal detachment; any difference between the two treatment groups was uncertain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.90; 60 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported intraocular pressure or cost outcomes. Current evidence on the effectiveness of adjunctive steroid therapy versus antibiotics alone in the management of acute endophthalmitis after intraocular surgery is inadequate. We found no studies that had enrolled cases of acute endophthalmitis following intravitreous injection. A combined analysis of two studies suggests adjunctive steroids may provide a higher probability of having a good visual outcome at three months than not using adjunctive steroids. However, considering that most of the confidence intervals crossed the null and that this review was limited in scope and applicability to clinical practice, it is not possible to conclude whether the use adjunctive steroids is effective at this time. Any future trials should examine whether adjunctive steroids may be useful in certain clinical settings such as type of causative organism or etiology. These studies should include outcomes that take patient's symptoms and clinical examination into account, report outcomes in a uniform and consistent manner, and follow up at short- and long-term intervals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 43 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 46 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 324,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.