The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Changing Spectrum of Fungal Keratitis in South Florida
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To review the clinical experience with fungal keratitis in south Florida over a 10-year period. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five cases of fungal keratitis were identified in the microbiology laboratory records between January 1982 and January 1992. The medical record of each patient was reviewed. RESULTS: The most commonly associated risk factor was trauma (44%). Fungal keratitis developed in five patients using extended wear contact lenses and one patient wearing a therapeutic bandage contact lens. Clinical features included irregular, feathery margins (62%), a dry, rough texture (47%), and satellite lesions (41%). An initial positive culture was obtained in 90% of patients, with a majority of cultures becoming positive within 48 hours. The Fusarium sp accounted for 62% of the isolates, with Fusarium oxysporum being the most commonly isolated organism. New fungal isolates include Candida parapsilosis, Aspergillus terreus, Candida tropicalis, and Trichosporon beigellii. Natamycin 5% suspension was the initial antifungal agent used for 91% of the patients, with an average duration of treatment of 38 days. Twenty-five patients were treated with oral ketoconazole for a median duration of 2 weeks, in addition to topical antifungal therapy. Thirty-four patients (27%) required a penetrating keratoplasty. Six patients had recurrence of fungal keratitis after penetrating keratoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma, including contact lens wear, is the most commonly associated risk factor. The fungal organisms can be readily identified in culture. F. oxysporum is the most common organism, with new isolates identified. The mainstay of therapy is topical natamycin with the increasing use of imidazoles.
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
Cited by
Aspergillus flavus: human pathogen, allergen and mycotoxin producer
Hedayati, M. T., Pasqualotto, A. C., Warn, P. A., Bowyer, P., & Denning, D. W. (2007) · Microbiology · doi:10.1099/mic.0.2007/007641-0 · Cited by 964
Candida parapsilosis, an Emerging Fungal Pathogen
Trofa, D., Gácser, A., & Nosanchuk, J. D. (2008) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00013-08 · Cited by 854
Infections Caused by Scedosporium spp
Cortez, K. J., Roilides, E., Quiroz-Telles, F., Meletiadis, J., Antachopoulos, C., Knudsen, T., Buchanan, W., Milanovich, J., Sutton, D. A., Fothergill, A., et al. (2008) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00039-07 · Cited by 786
Multistate Outbreak of Fusarium Keratitis Associated With Use of a Contact Lens Solution
Chang, D. C., Grant, G. B., O’Donnell, K., Wannemuehler, K. A., Noble-Wang, J., Rao, C. Y., Jacobson, L. M., Crowell, C. S., Sneed, R. S., Lewis, F. M. T., et al. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.953 · Cited by 600
Self-citationLeck, A. K., Thomas, P. A., Hagan, M., Kaliamurthy, J., Ackuaku, E., John, M., Newman, M. J., Codjoe, F. S., Opintan, J. A., Kalavathy, C. M., et al. (2002) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.86.11.1211 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosa, R. H., Miller, D., & Alfonso, E. C.
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-06
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1005-1013
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966620434
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: The Changing Spectrum of Fungal Keratitis in South Florida. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31225-5
- The paper
- Rosa, R. H., Miller, D., & Alfonso, E. C. (1994). The Changing Spectrum of Fungal Keratitis in South Florida. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31225-5
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.