The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Bacterial keratitis: a prospective clinical and microbiological study
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To define the clinical and microbiological profile of bacterial keratitis at the Jules Gonin Eye Hospital and to test the in vitro bacterial resistance. METHODS: Patients presenting with bacterial keratitis were prospectively followed; clinical features (age, risk factors, visual acuity) and response to therapy were analysed. Bacteriological profile was determined and the sensitivity/resistance of isolated strains were tested towards 12 ocular antibiotics (NCCLS disc diffusion test). RESULTS: 85 consecutive patients (mean age 44.3 (SD 20.7) years) were prospectively enrolled from 1 March 1997 to 30 November 1998. The following risk factors were identified: contact lens wear, 36%; blepharitis, 21%; trauma, 20%; xerophthalmia, 15%; keratopathies, 8%; and eyelid abnormalities, 6%. The most commonly isolated bacteria were Staphylococcus epidermidis, 40%; Staphylococcus aureus, 22%; Streptococcus pneumoniae, 8%; others Streptococcus species, 5%; Pseudomonas, 9%; Moraxella and Serratia marcescens, 5% each; Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Alcaligenes xyloxidans, Morganella morganii, and Haemophilus influenza, 1% each. 1-15% of strains were resistant to fluoroquinolones, 13-22% to aminoglycosides, 37% to cefazolin, 18% to chloramphenicol, 54% to polymyxin B, 51% to fusidic acid, and 45% to bacitracin. Five of the 85 patients (5.8%) had a poor clinical outcome with a visual loss of one or more lines of visual acuity. CONCLUSION: Fluoroquinolones appear to be the therapy of choice for bacterial keratitis, but, based upon these in vitro studies, some strains may be resistant.
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
Microbial Keratitis in South India: Influence of Risk Factors, Climate, and Geographical Variation
Bharathi, M. J., Ramakrishnan, R., Meenakshi, R., Padmavathy, S., Shivakumar, C., & Srinivasan, M. (2007) · Ophthalmic Epidemiology · doi:10.1080/09286580601001347 · Cited by 332
Prevalence of infectious keratitis in Central China
Cao, J., Yang, Y., Yang, W., Wu, R., Xiao, X., Yuan, J., Xing, Y., & Tan, X. (2014) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/1471-2415-14-43 · Cited by 88
Ch, S., Padaga, S. G., Ghosh, B., Roy, S., & Biswas, S. (2023) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.120822 · Cited by 40
Retracted
Metadata
- Authors
- Schaefer, F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-07-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 842-847
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2026007068
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Bacterial keratitis: a prospective clinical and microbiological study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.85.7.842
- The paper
- Schaefer, F. (2001). Bacterial keratitis: a prospective clinical and microbiological study. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.7.842
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.