Endophthalmitis Prophylaxis in Cataract Surgery: Overview of Current Practice Patterns Around the World
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery remains a rare but important cause of visual loss. There is no global consensus regarding the optimal strategies for prophylaxis of endophthalmitis and practices vary substantially around the world, especially with respect to the use of intracameral antibiotics. The European Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgeons in a randomized clinical trial (2007) reported an approximately 5-fold reduction in endophthalmitis rates associated with the use of intracameral cefuroxime. Despite this report, the use of intracameral antibiotics has not been universally adopted. METHODS: Various endophthalmitis prophylaxis patterns around the world (including the United States, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Russia, Sweden and Mexico) are compared. Each contributing author was asked to provide similar information, including endophthalmitis rates based on published studies, current practice patterns, and in some cases original survey data. Various methods were used to obtain this information, including literature reviews, expert commentary, and some new survey data not previously published. RESULTS: Many different practice patterns were reported from around the world, specifically with respect to the use of intracameral antibiotics. CONCLUSION: There is no worldwide consensus regarding endophthalmitis prophylaxis with cataract surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it