Evidence Hub

10-year analysis of microbiological profiles and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility: the Kent microbial keratitis study

Janmohamed IK, Oguntoye O, Fu L, Robson C, Elalfy M, Maqsood S

Eye (London, England), 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the incidence, microbiological profile, and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of microbial keratitis (MK) in Kent over a 10-year period.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all corneal scrape specimens processed between January 2015 and August 2024 at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust. Data extracted included patient demographics, isolates, and antimicrobial sensitivities. The study period was divided into two time periods (2015-2019 and 2020-2024) for trend analyses.

RESULTS: The estimated mean incidence of MK was 2.2 per 100,000 population per year. Of 1029 scrapes, 384 were culture-positive (37.3%). Gram-negative organisms predominated (50.9%), followed by Gram-positive (37.8%), fungi (5.0%), and Acanthamoeba (6.3%). Polymicrobial infections accounted for 10.4% of cases. Pseudomonas spp (35.9%), Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (15.0%), and Staphylococcus aureus (9.8%) were most commonly isolated. Average susceptibility of Gram-positive organisms to chloramphenicol, fluoroquinolones, and gentamicin was 96.7%, 76.0% and 92.1%, respectively, and for Gram-negative organisms was 48.2%, 93.4%, and 99.3%, respectively. Concerning trends included a 16.9% reduction in fluoroquinolone susceptibility among Gram-positive isolates (p < 0.001), with moxifloxacin efficacy decreasing by 57.9% (p = 0.002). The prevalence of Acanthamoeba represents an unrecognised regional…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free