The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To identify predisposing factors and to define clinical and microbiological characteristics of bacterial keratitis in current practice. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the hospital records of patients presenting with bacterial keratitis and treated at the Quinze-Vingts National Center of Ophthalmology, Paris, France, was performed during a 20 month period. A bacterial keratitis was defined as a suppurative corneal infiltrate and overlying epithelial defect associated with presence of bacteria on corneal scraping and/or that was cured with antibiotic therapy. Risk factors, clinical and microbiological data were collected. RESULTS: 300 cases (291 patients) of presumed bacterial keratitis were included. Potential predisposing factors, usually multiple, were identified in 90.6% of cases. Contact lens wear was the main risk factor (50.3%). Trauma or a history of keratopathy was found in 15% and 21% of cases, respectively. An organism was identified in 201 eyes (68%). 83% of the infections involved Gram positive bacteria, 17% involved Gram negative bacteria, and 2% were polymicrobial. Gram negative bacteria were associated with severe anterior chamber inflammation (p=0.004), as well as greater surface of infiltrates (p=0.01). 99% of ulcers resolved with treatment, but only 60% of patients had visual acuity better than the level at admission, and 5% had very poor visual outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Contact lens wear is the most important risk factor. Most community acquired bacterial ulcers resolve with appropriate treatment.
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
Incidence of Ulcerative Keratitis in a Defined Population From 1950 Through 1988
Erie, J. C. (1993) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.1993.01090120087027 · Cited by 268
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
Highly adhesive carbon quantum dots from biogenic amines for prevention of biofilm formation
Jian, H.-J., Yu, J., Li, Y.-J., Unnikrishnan, B., Huang, Y.-F., Luo, L.-J., Hui-Kang Ma, D., Harroun, S. G., Chang, H.-T., Lin, H.-J., et al. (2020) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.123913 · Cited by 115
Clinical outcomes of keratitis
Green, M. D., Apel, A. J., Naduvilath, T., & Stapleton, F. J. (2007) · Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01511.x · Cited by 92
Report on Testing From an Investigation of Fusarium Keratitis in Contact Lens Wearers
Levy, B., Heiler, D., & Norton, S. (2006) · Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice · doi:10.1097/01.icl.0000245556.46738.14 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Bourcier, T.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-07-01
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 834-838
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1999220050
- Cited by
- 691
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.60
- 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: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.87.7.834
- The paper
- Bourcier, T. (2003). Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.87.7.834
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.