Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aetiology of suppurative corneal ulcers in Ghana and south India, and epidemiology of fungal keratitis

Open access
Leck, 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, Essuman, V, Jesudasan, C A N, Johnson, G J·2002·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A multicentre study was carried out in Ghana and southern India to determine the aetiology of suppurative keratitis in two regions located at similar tropical latitudes. Studies of fungal keratitis from the literature were reviewed. METHODS: Patients presenting at rural and urban eye units with suspected microbial keratitis were recruited to the study. Corneal ulceration was defined as loss of corneal epithelium with clinical evidence of infection with or without hypopyon. Microscopy and culture were performed on all corneal specimens obtained. RESULTS: 1090 patients were recruited with suspected microbial keratitis between June 1999 and May 2001. Overall the principal causative micro-organisms in both regions were filamentous fungi (42%): Fusarium species and Aspergillus species were the commonest fungal isolates. Pseudomonas species were most frequently isolated from cases of bacterial keratitis in Ghana but in India the commonest bacterial isolates were streptococci. CONCLUSION: Infections of the cornea due to filamentous fungi are a frequent cause of corneal damage in developing countries in the tropics and are difficult to treat. Microscopy is an essential tool in the diagnosis of these infections. A knowledge of the "local" aetiology within a region is of value in the management of suppurative keratitis in the event that microscopy cannot be performed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjo.86.11.1211

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Leck, 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., Essuman, V, Jesudasan, C. A. N., & Johnson, G. J.
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
86
Issue
11
Pages
1211-1215
ISSN
0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152349558
Cited by
466
References
30
FWCI
13.96
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: Aetiology of suppurative corneal ulcers in Ghana and south India, and epidemiology of fungal keratitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.86.11.1211
The paper
Leck, 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., Essuman, V, Jesudasan, C. A. N., & Johnson, G. J. (2002). Aetiology of suppurative corneal ulcers in Ghana and south India, and epidemiology of fungal keratitis. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.11.1211

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.