Evidence Hub

Disease patterns of microbial keratitis in Singapore: A retrospective case series

Tong W, Chen D, Chai C, Tan AM, Manotosh R

Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association, 2019

230 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To investigate the disease patterns of Microbial Keratitis(MK) in patients seen in a tertiary referral hospital, to evaluate the clinical outcomes of MK and the risk factors for poorer visual outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of all culture-positive corneal scrapings between April 2012 and October 2016. A total of 230 patients(n = 230) were included into this study. Patient demographics, clinical information and microbiological characteristics of organisms are collected.

RESULTS

64.3% of patients with MK are contact lens(CL) users. Among CL users, there is a preponderance of females(68.9%) and they tend to be younger (27.1 ± 10.6 years). The most frequently isolated organism in this study is Pseudomonas aeruginosa(51.7%) with 69.6% of cases belonging to CL users. MK in non-CL users tend to involve other organisms, such as coagulase-negative Staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibits good sensitivity rates to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and gentamicin. Non-Pseudomonas organisms display similar sensitivities to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and gentamicin. MK in non-CL users is related to predisposing factors of prior ocular trauma and concomitant ocular pathology. They tend to have worse visual acuity(VA) on presentation and after treatment compared to CL users. Poorer VA outcome is associated with larger ulcers, increasing age, trauma and non-CL wearers. Successful clinical outcome is achieved…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 230 participants or records.

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