↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Medical interventions for fungal keratitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Medical interventions for fungal keratitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004241.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nilo Vincent FlorCruz, Jennifer R Evans

Abstract

Fungal keratitis is a fungal infection of the cornea. It is common in lower income countries, particularly in agricultural areas but relatively uncommon in higher income countries. Although there are medications available, their effectiveness is unclear. To assess the effects of different antifungal drugs in the management of fungal keratitis. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 March 2015. We included randomised controlled trials of medical therapy for fungal keratitis. Two review authors selected studies for inclusion in the review, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was clinical cure at two to three months. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity, time to clinical cure, compliance with treatment, adverse outcomes and quality of life. We included 12 trials in this review; 10 trials were conducted in India, one in Bangladesh and one in Egypt. Seven of these trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains, two of these studies were at low risk of bias in all domains. Participants were randomised to the following comparisons: topical 5% natamycin compared to topical 1% voriconazole; topical 5% natamycin compared to topical 2% econazole; topical 5% natamycin compared to topical chlorhexidine gluconate (0.05%, 0.1% and 0.2%); topical 1% voriconazole compared to intrastromal voriconazole 50 g/0.1 mL (both treatments combined with topical 5% natamycin); topical 1% voriconazole combined with oral voriconazole compared to both oral voriconazole and oral itraconazole (both combined with topical 5% natamycin); topical 1% itraconazole compared to topical 1% itraconazole combined with oral itraconazole; topical amphotericin B compared to topical amphotericin B combined with subconjunctival injection of fluconazole; intracameral injection of amphotericin B with conventional treatment compared to conventional treatment alone (severe fungal ulcers); topical 0.5% and 1% silver sulphadiazine compared to topical 1% miconazole. Overall the results were inconclusive because for most comparisons only one small trial was available. The exception was the comparison of topical natamycin and topical voriconazole for which three trials were available. In one of these trials clinical cure (healed ulcer) was reported in all 15 people allocated to natamycin and in 14/15 people allocated to voriconazole (risk ratio (RR) 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.28, low quality evidence). In one trial people randomised to natamycin were more likely to have a microbiological cure at six days (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.94, 299 participants). On average, people randomised to natamycin had better spectacle-corrected visual acuity at two to three months compared to people randomised to voriconazole but the estimate was uncertain and the 95% confidence intervals included 0 (no difference) (mean difference -0.12 logMAR, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.06, 434 participants; 3 studies, low quality evidence) and a decreased risk of corneal perforation or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty, or both (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94, 434 participants, high quality evidence). There was inconclusive evidence on time to clinical cure. Compliance with treatment and quality of life were not reported. One trial comparing natamycin and voriconazole found the effect of treatment greater in Fusarium species, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified by this review. The trials included in this review were of variable quality and were generally underpowered. There is evidence that natamycin is more effective than voriconazole in the treatment of fungal ulcers. Future research should evaluate treatment effects according to fungus species.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Librarian 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 24 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#5,078,796
of 16,948,032 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,638
of 11,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,565
of 273,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#192
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,948,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 273,264 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.