The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Natamycin and Voriconazole for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a therapeutic exploratory clinical trial comparing clinical outcomes of treatment with topical natamycin vs topical voriconazole for fungal keratitis. METHODS: The multicenter, double-masked, clinical trial included 120 patients with fungal keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital in India who were randomized to receive either topical natamycin or topical voriconazole and either had repeated scraping of the epithelium or not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 months. Other outcomes included scar size, perforations, and a subanalysis of BSCVA at 3 months in patients with an enrollment visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/400. RESULTS: Compared with those who received natamycin, voriconazole-treated patients had an approximately 1-line improvement in BSCVA at 3 months after adjusting for scraping in a multivariate regression model but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .29). Scar size at 3 months was slightly greater with voriconazole after adjusting for scraping (P = .48). Corneal perforations in the voriconazole group (10 of 60 patients) were not significantly different than in the natamycin-treated group (9 of 60 patients) (P >.99). Scraping was associated with worse BSCVA at 3 months after adjusting for drug (P = .06). Patients with baseline BSCVA of 20/40 to 20/400 showed a trend toward a 2-line improvement in visual acuity with voriconazole (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there were no significant differences in visual acuity, scar size, and perforations between voriconazole- and natamycin-treated patients. There was a trend toward scraping being associated with worse outcomes. Application to Clinical Practice The benefit seen with voriconazole in the subgroup of patients with baseline visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/400 needs to be validated in a confirmatory clinical trial. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00557362.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Rosenfeld, P. J., Brown, D. M., Heier, J. S., Boyer, D. S., Kaiser, P. K., Chung, C. Y., & Kim, R. Y. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa054481 · Cited by 5,886
Ranibizumab versus Verteporfin for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Brown, D. M., Kaiser, P. K., Michels, M., Soubrane, G., Heier, J. S., Kim, R. Y., Sy, J. P., & Schneider, S. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa062655 · Cited by 3,522
Cited by
A Hydrogel-Based Hybrid Theranostic Contact Lens for Fungal Keratitis
Huang, J.-F., Zhong, J., Chen, G.-P., Lin, Z.-T., Deng, Y., Liu, Y.-L., Cao, P.-Y., Wang, B., Wei, Y., Wu, T., et al. (2016) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.6b00601 · Cited by 257
Fungal antioxidant pathways promote survival against neutrophils during infection
Leal, S. M., Vareechon, C., Cowden, S., Cobb, B. A., Latgé, J.-P., Momany, M., & Pearlman, E. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci63239 · Cited by 146
Metadata
- Authors
- Prajna, N. V.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2010-06-01
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 672
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159093932
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Natamycin and Voriconazole for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.102
- The paper
- Prajna, N. V. (2010). Comparison of Natamycin and Voriconazole for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.102
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.